26 Barb. 564 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1858
It may be quite true that a common earner is not liable on an implied contract to deliver goods at any specific time. But, like any other person,
We consider the exceptions on the other points equally untenable. The referee adopted the correct rule of damages in cases of this nature. Compensation for the actual loss sus-Is tained, is the fundamental principle upon which our law bases the allowance of damages. It will not, indeed, make this allowance upon a calculation of speculative profits; for this would he proceeding upon contingencies, and would involve the subject too much ip uncertainty. It would be too difficult for practical application. Nor will the law indemnify for remote or indirect losses. The loss must be the natural and proximate consequence of the act, and when this can be ascertained without uncertainty, the principle of compensation will be adopted. This was clearly ascertainable in the present case, j
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Davies, Clerke and Sutherland, Justices.]