1 See as to the rule of damages in Hadley v. Baxendale, supra, that if special circumstances are known to both parties, the damages are those reasonably contemplated under such circumstances; if unknown, the damages are those rising generally from the great multitude of cases, unaffected by such circumstances, Hydraulic, etc." Co. v. McHaffie, 4 Q. B. D. 670; White v. Miller, 71 N. Y. 118; Wolcott v. Mount, 9 Vroom, 496; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Titusville, etc. Co. 71 Pa. 350; Hopkins v. San ford, 41 Mich. 243, Mihills Manuf Co v. Day, 50 ln 250. In an action against a carrier for breach of an executory contract to carry goods, the measure of damages is the market value of the goods at the place to which they should have been carried, less their value at the place where the carrier agreed to receive them, and less freight; and the facts that the owner of the goods informed the carrier, at the time of making the contract, that he did so because he wished to make contracts with third persons for the sale of goods to them, and that he did make such contracts afterwards, do not entitle him to recover of the carrier the profits which he would have made but for the breach of the contract of carriage. Harvey v. Connecticut, etc. R. Co. 124 Mass. 421. Joint damages cannot be reduced by profits made by some of the plaintiffs individually, which they would not otherwise have made but for the breach of contract for which the damages were recovered. Jebsen v. East & West India Dock Co. L. R. 10 C. P. 300. See Brad burn v Great Western R. Co. L. R. 10 Ex. 1. The measure of damages for failure to deliver machinery at the specified time cannot be fixed by the loss of profits which might have been made by the use of the machinery. McKinnon v McEwan, 48 Mich. 106. - K.

(y) Thus, where a party refuses to fulfil a contract, the other party may recover ered. (yy)l And in a suit for personal injury the plaintiff may give evidence not only of suffering endured before the suit, but of that which with reasonable certainty will result afterwards from the injury, (yz) In some instances, the courts have gone

*

1 A. committed a breach of a contract to supply to B. a part of a machine, which B. had contracted to make for C., so that C. refused to accept the machine. Held, that B. could recover as damages from A. for the loss of profit upon the contract with C. and for the expenditure uselessly incurred by him in making other parts of the machine. Hydraulic Engineering Co. v. McHaffie. 4 Q. B. 1). 670. In Simpson v. London, etc R Co. 1 Q. B. D. 274, it was decided that a railway company was liable for loss of time and profits resulting to an exhibitor at an agricultural show, whose goods, received by a special agent for that purpose at a show ground, for carriage to another show ground, it failed to deliver in season. "Whenever either the object of the sender is specially brought to the notice of the carrier, or circumstances are known to the carrier from which the object ought in reason to he inferred, so that the object may be taken to have been within the contemplation of both parties, damages may be recovered for the contract, the loss of gains which were certain and would naturally have resulted from execution of the contract, may be recovas damages the difference between the sum he was to be paid for performing it and what it would have cost him to complete it. In Masterton v. Major of Brooklyn, 7 Hill, 61, the plaintiffs agreed to furnish the marble necessary for a public building at a specified sum. The defendants suspended operations, and the plaintiffs were thereby prevented from furnishing the fall amount. An action of covenant was brought. Nelson, C. J. said: " When the books and speak of the profits anticipated from a good bargain, as matters too remote and uncertain to be taken into the account in ascertaining the measure of damages, they usually have relation to dependent and collateral engagements, entered into on the faith and in expectation of the performance of the principal contract The performance or non-performance of the latter may and often doubtless does exert a material influence upon the collateral enterprises of the party; and the same may be said as to his general affairs and business transactions. But the influence is altogether too remote and subtile to be reached by legal proof or judicial investigation. But profits or advantages which are the direct and immediate fruits of the contract entered into between the parties, stand upon a different footing. These-are part and parcel of the contract itself, enteriug into and constituting a portion of its very elements, something stipulated for, the right to the enjoyment of which is just as clear and plain as to the fulfilment of any other stipulation. They are presumed ta have been taken into consideration and deliberated upon before the contract was made, and formed perhaps the only inducement to the arrangement. . . . The contract here is for the delivery of marble wrought in a particular manner, so as to be fitted for use in the erection of a certain building. The plaintiff's claim is substantially one for not accepting goods bargained and sold; as much as if the subject-matter of the contract had been bricks, rough stone, or any other article of commerce used in the process of building The only difficulty or embarrassment in applying the general rule, grows out of the tact that the article in question does not appear to have any well-ascertained market value. But this cannot change the principle which must govern, but only the mode of ascertaining the actual value of the article, or rather the cost of the party producing it. Where the article has no market value, an investigation into the constituent elements of the cost to the party who has contracted to furnish it, becomes necessary; and that compared with the contract price will afford the measure of damages." See Fox v. Harding, 7 Cush. 516. The N. Y. & II. R. Co o. Story, 6 Barb. 419; Lawrence v. Wardwell, 6 id. 423; Seaton v. The Second Municipality, 3 La. An. 44; Goodloe v. Rogers, 9 id. 273. The principle laid down in Masterton v Mayor of Brooklyn, was approved in the Supreme Court of the Uuited States, in P. W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Howard, 13 How. 307, 344. Curtis, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, said: " Actual damages clearly include the direct and actual loss which the plaintiff sustains, propter rem ipsom non habitant. And in case of a contract like this, that loss is, among other things, the difference between the cost of doing the work and the price to be paid for it. This difference is the inducement and real consideration which causes the contractor to enter into the contract For this he spends his time, exerts his skill, uses his capital, and assumes the risks which attend the enterprise. And to deprive him of it when the other party has broken the contract, and unlawfully put an end to the work, would be unjust. There is no rule of law which requires us to inflict this injustice. Wherever profits are spokeu of as not a subject of damages, it will be found that something contingent upon future bargains, or speculations, or states of market, are referred to, and not the difference between the agreed price of something contracted for natural consequences of the failure of that object." Per Cockburn, C J. See Morgan v. Hefler, 68 Me. 131; Wolcott v. Mount, 7 Vroom, 262; Dunn v. Johnson, 33 Ind. 54. In Schulse v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. 19 Q. B. D. 30, the defendant was held liable for the loss of trade caused by failure to deliver a package of samples. So for failure to furnish means of transportation at au agreed time, by reason of which a favorable bargain or market was lost of which the defendant had notice beforehand, damages were allowed for the loss of that favorable opportunity. Doming v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co. 48 N. H 455; Hamilton v. Western, etc. R. R. Co. 96 N. C. 398. See also Horne v. The Midland Ry. Co. L. B. 7 C. P. 583; 8 C. P. 131; Devereux v. Buckley, 34 Ohio St 16.