California Supreme Court, 1854

Baldwin v. Bennett

California Supreme Court · Decided October 15, 1854 · Heydeneeldt, Murray

4 Cal. 392

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Fracasse v. Brent (Cal. 1972)
Anderson v. Gailey (Idaho 1980)
Denio v. City of Huntington Beach (Cal. 1943)
Salopek v. Schoemann (Cal. 1942)
White v. Burch (Tex. App. 1929)
Cazares v. Saenz (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)
Estate of Falco (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)
Hobart v. Decker (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)
Fivey v. Chambers (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)
Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. Kinsler (Cal. 1938)
Green v. Sherritt (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
White v. Burch (Tex. App. 1930)
T. H. Flood & Co. v. Bates (7th Cir. 1922)
Snow v. Beard (Or. 1917)
Mesa County National Bank v. Berry (Colo. App. 1913)
Mesa County National Bank v. Berry (Colo. App. 1913)
Crye v. O'Neal & Allday (Tex. App. 1911)
Scheinesohn v. Lemonek (Ohio 1911)
Philbrook v. Moxey (Mass. 1906)
Rosenbloom v. Maas (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1905)
Webb v. Trescony (Cal. 1888)
Kersey v. Garton (Mo. 1883)
Glaspie v. Glassow (Minn. 1881)
Duke v. Harper (Mo. Ct. App. 1880)
McElhinney v. Kline (Mo. Ct. App. 1878)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

The general rule as to measure of damages in an action for breach of contract, is correctly given by appellant’s counsel. It “is not the whole price agreed to be paid, but the actual loss sustained, which will consist of the value of the services rendered and the damage sustained by the refusal to allow performance of the rest of the contract.”

To this rule there are, however, some exceptions. Where, from the nature of the contract, as in this case, no possible mode is left of ascertaining the damage, we will have presented the anomalous case of a wrong without a remedy, *394unless we adopt the only measure of damages which remains, and that is, the price agreed to be paid. Without [394] ' this, justice would be * defeated, and parties encouraged to violate their contracts of similar character. The defendant not only breaks his contract, but also deprives the party of showing the amount of injury under the general rule. He cannot complain that a different rule is invoked, when it is the only one left to make him responsible for his want of good faith. This reasoning was adopted in a case precisely similar, by the Supreme Court of Alabama. ( See Hunt v. Test, 8 Ala. 713.)

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.