3 Cal. 373 | Cal. | 1853
delivered the opinion of the .court. Heydenfeldt, Justice, concurred.
The only error, which we consider it necessary to notice in this case, is the admission of testimony to prove the speculative profits of the plaintiffs.
The true rule of damages was the difference between the price agreed on between the parties, and the market value of the goods at the time of the breach of the contract.
The fact that there were no Chinese goods in the market at that time, corresponding to the description of those sold by the defendants, did not warrant the admission of evidence showing what
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.