Ernesto Foglino Co., Inc. v. Webster

155 N.E. 878, 244 N.Y. 516, 1926 N.Y. LEXIS 669
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 3, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 155 N.E. 878 (Ernesto Foglino Co., Inc. v. Webster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ernesto Foglino Co., Inc. v. Webster, 155 N.E. 878, 244 N.Y. 516, 1926 N.Y. LEXIS 669 (N.Y. 1926).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the result reached by the Appellate Division in this case, except as to the question of damages. The trial court fixed their measure as the difference between the market value of the coal on the date when the loss of the plaintiff was to be determined0 and the price which under the contract of sale it was to receive therefor, or $48,750. Because it had a contract, however, to purchase this coal for more than its market price, the Appellate Division has said that the profit it would have made on this particular transaction is the loss it has sustained by the wrongful act of the defendants. It, therefore, reduced its judgment to $22,500.

Having obligated itself to purchase 15,000 tons of coal *518 at $31.75 per ton when the market price was about $30.05, because it was to receive about $33.25 if the transaction had been completed, it would have made, it is true, profits of $1.50 a ton. But the sale failed. Plaintiff is left with 15,000 tons of coal on its hands, or for which it is responsible.. For it it has paid or must pay $31.75 per ton. Its market value is $30.05. On each tori it will lose $1.70, or $25,500. Yet it is said it is compensated by the judgment as reduced. We do not think so.

It is argued, however, that on the facts before us such a situation is but theoretical. The original seller of the coal has consented to abrogate its contract. Even so, the rule to be adopted does not vary because of the generosity of third parties.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified so as to award the plaintiff judgment in the sum of $48,750 as damages, with interest thereon from April 30, 1920, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

His cock, Ch. J., Cakdozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

J. Zeevi & Sons, Ltd. v. Grindlays Bank
333 N.E.2d 168 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
Veverka v. Spinella
60 Misc. 2d 529 (New York Supreme Court, 1969)
Ufitec, S. A. v. Trade Bank & Trust Co.
21 A.D.2d 187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1964)
Bril v. Suomen Pankki Finlands Bank
199 Misc. 11 (New York Supreme Court, 1950)
Pastor v. B. Lindner & Bro., Inc.
233 A.D. 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 N.E. 878, 244 N.Y. 516, 1926 N.Y. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernesto-foglino-co-inc-v-webster-ny-1926.