Haskell v. McHenry

4 Cal. 411
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 4 Cal. 411 (Haskell v. McHenry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Haskell v. McHenry, 4 Cal. 411 (Cal. 1854).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion -of the Court.

Mr. Oh. J. Murray concurred.

The contract declared on was an entirety. The first breach by the defendant was a breach of the whole, and discharged the plaintiff from the performance of any conditions on his part. It gave him a complete right of action.

The rule of damages was properly decided, although the Court committed an error in instructing the jury that it was the difference between the contract price and the proceeds of the sale at auction. The true rule is the difference between the contract price and the market value, at the time of the breach, and so the Court afterwards charged. But the error, if not relieved by the subsequent instruction, has done no injury, as the evidence, without dispute, establishes that the price at the auction sale was the fair market value.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Alderson v. Houston
96 P. 884 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
De Prosse v. Royal Eagle Distilleries Co.
67 P. 502 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Heck
50 Ind. 303 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1875)
Kane v. Jenkinson
14 F. Cas. 121 (E.D. Michigan, 1873)
Clark v. McElvy
11 Cal. 154 (California Supreme Court, 1858)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Cal. 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haskell-v-mchenry-cal-1854.