Cited by

Long before Despatch, we held in Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , that loss of crops caused by the inability to harvest with a defective harvesting machine constituted consequential damages.

Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , .

Liljengren F. & L. Co. v. Mead, 42 Minn. 420, 422, 423 , ; Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , ; Glaubitz v. Meyer, 149 Minn. 161, 163 , ; Smith v. Altier, 184 Minn. 299 , .

187 , ; Kuhuke v. Wright, 22 Kan.

Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , 11 N W. 88; Paulson v. D. M. Osborne & Co. 35 Minn. 90 , 27 N W. 203.

Among the cases in this state explaining and applying it are the following: Liljengren F. & L. Co. v. Mead, supra; Sargent v. Mason, 101 Minn. 319 , ; Paine v. Sherwood, 19 Minn. 270 (315); Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , ; Wilson v. Reedy, 32 Minn. 256 , ; Hitchcock v. Turnbull, 44 Minn. 475 , ; North v. Johnson, 58 Minn. 242 , .

This rule is illustrated in Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , , where it was held that when the damages resulting from the breach of a contract were not such as arose naturally from the breach itself, but such as may reasonably have been contemplated by the parties as the probable result of the breach, then such circumstance must be specially pleaded.

Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , ; Thoreson v. Minneapolis Harvester Works, 29 Minn. 341 , ; Schurmeier v. English, 46 Minn. 306 , ; Fitzpatrick v. D. M. Osborne & Co., supra.

Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.

141 ;) Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476, 483 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.

451 ;) Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.

In reference to the counterclaim attempted to be set up, all that is necessary to be said is that, within the rule laid down in Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , ( 13 N. W. Rep.

Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.

' As to evidence of the working of other machines, see Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476, 483 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.

Within the decision of this court in Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.

341, and approved in Paine v. Sherwood, 21 Minn. 225 , and in Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476, 481 , is that such damages are recoverable when, from the circumstances of any particular case, they may reasonably be supposed to have been contemplated by the parties, when making the contract, as the probable result of the breach.

This question was decided by this court in Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476 , adversely to this position of the appellant.