From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Newbold v. Fertilizer Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1930
155 S.E. 167 (N.C. 1930)

Opinion

(Filed 8 October, 1930.)

Damages C a — Plaintiff may not recover where damage is remote, uncertain and speculative.

The plaintiff may not recover damages for breach by the defendant of a contract to ship fertilizer when the plaintiff's losses to crops are contingent, speculative, or merely possible, and are not such as in the ordinary course of things are reasonably proximate and certain.

APPEAL by plaintiffs from Grady, J., at April Term, 1930, of ONSLOW. Affirmed.

N.E. Day and Dawson Jones for plaintiffs.

John D. Warlick and L. I. Moore for defendant.


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

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

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Newbold v. Fertilizer Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1930
155 S.E. 167 (N.C. 1930)
Case details for

Newbold v. Fertilizer Co.

Case Details

Full title:ANNIE L. NEWBOLD AND W. A. NEWBOLD v. MEADOWS FERTILIZER COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Oct 1, 1930

Citations

155 S.E. 167 (N.C. 1930)
199 N.C. 552

Citing Cases

Payne v. Stanton

If plaintiff was entitled to recover anything, he was entitled to recover compensation only for those…

Chesson v. Container Co.

We are not sure that the evidence in its present form justified the submission to the jury, as an element of…