Procedural Posture

Plaintiff brought a breach of contract action against defendant to recover damages caused by a creditor’s attachment suit. The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) entered judgment for plaintiff and refused defendant’s motion for a new trial. Defendant appealed.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. provides Certificate of Incumbency Template


Plaintiff placed in the hands of defendant a certain sum of money to be paid when it should become due from plaintiff to a creditor. Plaintiff contended that upon defendant’s failure to make the payment the creditor attached plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff sought as special damages the costs of the attachment suit. Defendant argued that the evidence of those damages was not admissible. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff, as plaintiff could prove and recover only the damages that naturally and necessarily resulted from the breach of contract. The court concluded that the complaint alleged no facts showing defendant knew that damages would probably flow from a breach of the contract by him greater than such as would follow from a breach of the contract “in the usual course of things.”


The court reversed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff and order denying defendant a new trial. The court remanded the cause for a new trial.