Extraordinary and unusual profits lost cause of the vendor's failure to fulfil his contract cannot be recovered as damages, althOugh the vendor knew that the goods were bought to fill a previous contract with a third person ; Guetzkow Bros. Co. v. An drews, 92 Wis. 214, 66 N. W. 119, 52 L. R. A. 209, 53 Am. St. Rep. 909 ; ordinary profits are recoverable ; Gardner v. Deeds & Hirsig, 116 Tenn. 128, 92 S. W. 518, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 740, 7 Ann. Cas. 1172 ; contra, H. G. Hol loway & Bro. v. Shoe Co., 151 Fed. 216, 80 C. C. A. 568, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 704.
Speculative profits which might have re suited from displaying a machine at an ex hibition cannot be considered; Winston Ciga rette Machine Co. v. Tobacco Co., 141 N. C. 284, 53 S. E. 885, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255. Where inferior articles are furnished, the measure of damages is the difference of value between those delivered and those agreed to be delivered at the time and place of delivery; Ellison & Co. v. J. T. Johnson & Co., 74 S. C. 202, 54 S. E. 202, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151. Failure to deliver bonds renders the promisor liable for the value of the bonds at the time of delivery ; Henry v. Construction Co., 158 Fed. 79, 85 C. C. A. 409. In the absence of special circumstances or special damage shown, damages for loss by failure of deliv ery in time is measured by the interest on the investment tied up by the breach, for the time the use of the property was postponed ; Wood v. Gaslight Co., 111 Fed. 463, 49 C. C. A. 427 ; New York & Colorado Min. Syndi cate & Co. v. Fraser, 130 U. S. 611, 9 Sup. Ct. 665, 32 L. Ed. 1031; and this rule was applied for failure to deliver a vessel, but damages for the loss of a vessel in a hurri cane are too speculative for recovery in an action for breach of contract to construct and deliver at a designated time and place; De Ford v. Steel Co., 113 Fed. 72, 51 C. C. A. 59.
The measure of damages for breach of a contract to deliver articles if they have no market value or cannot be had in the market where the delivery was to be made, is the additional cost and expense of obtaining them at the nearest market, or on the most advantageous terms ; Vickery v. McCormick, 117 Ind. 594, 20 N. E. 495.
Many courts allow the highest intermedi ate value between the breach and the end of the trial; Gilman v. Andrews, 66 Ia. 116, 23 N. W. 291; Ellis v. Wire, 33 Ind. 127, 5 Am. Rep. 189; but it Is generally denied;
Ingram v. Rankin, 47 Wis. 406, 2 N. W. 755, 32 Am. Rep. 762 ; Third Nat. Bank of Balti more v. Boyd, 44 Md. 47, 22 Am. Rep. 35; Brewster v. Van Liew, 119 Ill. 554, 8 N. E. 842 ; Hale, Dam. 186, 194, where the rule is discussed, with the authorities. This rule was originally adopted in New York as to chattels generally ; Romaine v. Van Allen, 26 N. Y. 309. It was modified to exclude stock transactions on the ground that the highest intermediate value was not the nat ural and proximate result ; Baker v. Drake, 53 N. Y. 211, 13 Am. Rep. 507. The rule of the last cited case is adopted in Galigher v. Jones, 129 U. S. 193, 9 Sup. Ct. 335, 32 L. Ed. 658. In Pennsylvania the rule is rejected in its general application ; Smethurst v. Woolston, 5 U. & S. (Pa.) 106, but adopted in case of stocks ; Musgrave v. Beckendorff, 53 Pa. 310; see Neller v. Kelley, 69 Pa. 403. In some cases it is left to the jury to allow any value between the highest value and that at the time of conversion ; Renfro's Adm'x v. Hughes, 69 Ala. 581; and in others, where the transaction is free from bad faith, value is taken at the time of conversion, with interest; Whitfield v. Whitfield, 40 Miss. 352.
For breach of contract by a broker to de liver stocks on the demand of a customer for whom they were bought on margin, the damages are to be determined by the highest intermediate value between the default and the time when the customer has notice thereof reasonably sufficient to enable him to replace the. stocks; In re Swift, 114 Fed. 947.
The damages for breach of contract to de liver stock are held in some cases to be the difference between the contract price and the highest market price which the stock attains during such reasonable time after that set for delivery as would enable the purchaser to secure the stock elsewhere; Vos v. Child, Hulswit & Co., 171 Mich. 595, 137 N. W. 209, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 368; Joseph v. Sulzberger, 136 App. Div. 499, 121 N. Y. Supp. 73. But the preponderance of authority is that the damage is measured by the difference between the market value and the contract price at the time of delivery ; Sloan v. McKane, 131 App. Div. 244, 115 N. Y. Supp. 648 ; Coffin v. State, 144 Ind. 578, 43 N. E. 654, 55 Am. St. Rep. 188 ; Gray v. Bank, 3 Mass. 390, 3 Am. Dec. 156 ; Bank of Montgomery v. Reese, 26 Pa. 143.