Newbold v. Meadows Fertilizer Co.

155 S.E. 167, 199 N.C. 552, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 177
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 8, 1930·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pee Cukiam.

Tbe plaintiffs claim to have given tbe defendant an order for fertilizer wbicb was never filled, and for tbe defendant’s alleged breach of a contract to ship fertilizer they seek to recover damages. At tbe close of tbe evidence tbe trial judge intimated an opinion that only nominal damages, if any, could be recovered. Tbe plaintiffs submitted to a nonsuit and appealed. This ruling is sustained by authorities to tbe effect that damages are not allowed for losses wbicb are contingent, speculative, or merely possible and are not such as in tbe ordinary course of things are reasonably proximate and certain. Tbe evidence fails to establish a standard by wbicb tbe alleged loss may be determined with sufficient certainty.

We have considered all tbe assignments of error and find no satisfactory reason for sustaining them. Judgment

Affirmed.

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

Newbold v. Meadows Fertilizer Co., 155 S.E. 167, 199 N.C. 552, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 177 (N.C. 1930).

155 S.E. 167 (Newbold v. Meadows Fertilizer Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chesson v. Keickheffer Container Co.
4 S.E.2d 886 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Payne v. . Stanton
188 S.E. 629 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)