C. W. Young Co. v. Union Oil Co.

Good Law
293 F. 742·5 Alaska Fed. 188·1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 1673
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 3, 1923No. 4032California834 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rudkin, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

Under the affirmative defenses, as limited and explained by the bill of particulars, the plaintiff in error based its right of recovery upon the loss of profits on certain specific unfilled orders, and we are at a loss to know how the cost of the dock and other facilities could have any bearing upon that issue. For, waiving the question whether the cost of these facilities would be a proper element of damage in this case'under any circumstances, we deem it sufficient to say that such cost was not made the basis of re *191 covery, and the testimony offered was not relevant to any issue in the case.

The instructions of the court are numbered from 1 to 36, inclusive, and cover 24 pages of the printed record. The only exceptions to the instructions are in the following language: “The defendant excepts to the instruction given by the court to the effect that the plaintiff did not undertake to keep the defendants supplied with sufficient oils on hand to supply the trade it could procure or the business it could procure, and we except to the instruction of the court giving the definition of speculative damages, and the defendant excepts to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.