Cited by

However, it is claimed that the proposed power plant would simply take over an established operation and that under such circumstances the case is governed by our decisions in Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252, 256 , , and Miller v. Reiter, 155 Minn. 110, 112 , .

ntract of resale and the purchase is made in contemplation of such contract of resale, and for the purpose of fulfilling it, and the goods cannot be otherwise procured in the market, and the seller is apprised of these facts, *63 at the time the contract is made, the buyer may recover the profits he loses by reason of the breach.” See, also, Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225, 232 ; Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ; John Newton Porter Co. v. Kiewel Brg.

Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ; Collins v. Lewis, 53 Minn. 78 , , 19 L. R. A. 822; Wild Rice Lbr.

They rely upon cases having to do 1 with damages resulting from the interference with a going business, such as Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , , Avhere the evidence was held insufficient to justify an award for lost profits; Emerson v. Pacific C. & N. P. Co. 96 Minn. 1 , , 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ; Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co. v. Prince, 34 Minn. 71 , ; Emerson v. Pacific Coast & Norway Packing Co. 96 Minn. 1 , .

In Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , , a case in which the lessor agreed to make alterations and repairs at a stated time but failed to do so and interrupted the lessee’s business to make them at a later time, it is said [p. 256]: “When a regular and established business, the value of which may be ascertained, has been wrongfully interrupte

Plaintiff had an established business and net profits were susceptible of satisfactory proof under the doctrine of Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , .

Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , , was an action for rent, and the defendant was permitted to interpose a counterclaim for damages for wrongfully entering upon and interfering with his use of the premises.

Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ; Hackett v. Kanne, 98 Minn. 240 , ; Wild Rice Lumber Co.v.

The general rules, then, for ascertaining the amount of anticipated future profits lost by the interruption of an established business (see Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ) are not applicable in their entirety to a case like this one.

Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ; Telulah v. Patten, 132 Wis.

Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , , was a ease involving the sufficiency of the evidence, where -it was sought to recover damages for the interruption of.

The statute as to counterclaims was liberally construed in Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , , an action to recover rent, and the - defendant was allowed to plead as a counterclaim the wrongful interference by the landlord with the tenant’s possession, on the ground that it was connected with the subject-matter of the action.

And see Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , , and the express holding of this court on the former appeal of this case in 92 Minn. 523, 526 , .

Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ; McLane v. Kelly, 72 Minn. 395 , .

There may be cases where a mercantile business is so well established, its profits so uniform and certain and subject to so few contingencies, that the doctrine of Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , , will apply, but they are rare.

*443 In Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

This would seem to follow from the rule adopted in Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , ( 2 N. W. Rep.

On the.other hand, in Gœbel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , also a claim for interrupting a business, it appearing that it was a regular and established business, it was held that its value could be got at with reasonable certainty by showing its profits for a reasonable time prior to the interruption, and that the ordinary profits of such a business are not contingent or- s

Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 ; Allison v. Chandler, 11 Mich.

This case is not like Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , which was one of a “regular and established business.” See, also, Chapman v. Kirby, 49 Ill.

The ease is different from Goebel v. Hough, 26 Minn. 252 , for in that case the wrongful act of the plaintiff constituted a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment in the lease upon which the action was brought.