Pleading—Breach of Contract>-^Plaintiffs Suing as “Formerly Copartners”—Amendment—Change of Cause of Action.—A cause of action to recover damages for breach of a contract, as set forth in an original complaint in which the plaintiffs were described as “formerly copartners,” is not changed by an amendment which averred that the plaintiffs continued to be copartners in the subject matter of the cause of action.

Id.—Statute of Limitations—Breach of Written Contract.—An action to recover damages for the breach of a written contract is founded upon a written instrument, within the meaning of subdivision 1 of section 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing a four years’ limitation for the commencement of such actions.

Id.—Contract to Purchase as Required in Business—Ability to Furnish After Breach.—In an action by a manufacturer of ice to recover damages for breach of a contract by the terms of which the defendant, a retail dealer, agreed to purchase all the ice necessary for him to supply his customers, the plaintiff, as a condition of recovery, need not show that he was in a position to deliver ice after the date of the defendants’ breach, of the contract.

Id.—Measure of Damages—Difference Between Cost of Manufacture and Contract Price—Special Damage Need not be Alleged. Under section 1512 of the Civil Code, the measure of damages for breach of such a contract is the difference between the cost of manufacturing the ice and the contract price. Such loss of profits, being the natural result of the contract and implied from a breach, may be recovered without allegation of special damages.

Id.—Estoppel—Injunction Against Breach of Contract.—The manufacturer, by electing to sue for an injunction against the violation of such contract, was not estopped from maintaining a subsequent action for its breach.