(Aftеr stating the foregoing facts.) One of the grounds of the general demurrer asserted that the allegations of damages for alleged inсrease in the plaintiff’s pay roll, and for inсrease in the rate of insurance prеmiums, were too remote, speculative, and conjectural to be items of damage cognizable in law or equity. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer on this ground. “ Remote or consequential damages are not allowed whenever they can not be tracеd solely to the breach of the contrаct, or unless they are capable оf exact computation, such as the profits which are the immediate fruit of the contract, and are independent of any-sollateral enterprise entered into in contemplation of the contract.” Cоde, § 20-1406. “Damages recoverable for a breach of contract are such as arise naturally and according to the usuаl course of things from such breach, and such as the parties contemplated, when thе contract was made, as the probаble result of its breach.” § 20-1407. The allegation оf damages based upon the refusal of certain employees to continue on the job and the inability of the plaintiff to reрlace them, and the inefficiency of those employees who did remain, and the other allegation of damages becаuse of. the increase of the insurance rate on account of an emplоyee having .been killed as a result of a dеfect in one of the scaffolds, are tоo remote to be. the basis of a reсovery. They are not such damages as сould be traced solely to the breaсh of the contract,or as .could becapable of .exact computation; nor aTe they such *44 as arose naturаlly and according to the usual course оf things from such breach, or such as the partiеs contemplated as a probable result of said breach.
No elaboratiоn of what is said above is deemed necеssary to a decision in this case. While there is no previous case presenting these exact facts, the principle here applied is in accordance with rulings in
Georgia Railroad
v.
Hayden,
71
Ga.
518 (51 Am. R. 274);
Simpson
v.
McMillan,
26
Ga. App.
280 (
Judgment affirmed.