POULSON v. HOSKINS

[No. 6,967. Department No. 1.] POULSON v. HOSKINS. Statement on Motion por New Trial—Extension op Time—Breach op Contract—Damages. Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Tenth District Court, County of Colusa. Keysek, J. The complaint alleged that the defendant agreed to repair the plaintiff’s soda-water apparatus for the sum of $200; that the work was unskillfully done, and that the plaintiff suffered damage thereby in the sum of $3,000, as follows: to wit, that plaintiff lost his entire summer’s work; expended four or five hundred dollars for materials, which were spoilt; employed two men at $65 and $75 per month, from May to August, 1879, and had no business for them by reason of defendant’s breach of contract; that the soda water manufactured by him was of inferior quality, and spoiled in the hands of his customers, thereby utterly ruining the reputation of plaintiff as a soda-water manufacturer ; that plaintiff’s credit was materially injured, and his business ruined; and that, if defendant had performed his contract, plaintiff would have realized a net profit from his business of $2,000. The answer was a general denial, and the verdict and judgment was for $1,100 and costs. The statement on motion for new trial was stricken out, on motion of respondent’s attorneys, because not filed in time. Marshall Craig, and Grant & Jackson Hatch, for Appellant. The damages alleged in the complaint are speculative, consequential, and remote. (Selden v. Cushman, 20 Cal. 57.) Hart & Hart, for Respondent. The complaint in this case is for breach of contract. There was no demurrer. The evidence is stricken out, and there is no record of the instructions. [MAJORITY — The Court:] The Court: Judgment and order affirmed.