McCOMB, J.
From an order dismissing defendant's second amended cross-complaint after sustaining of a demurrer thereto with leave to amend, of which leave defendant did not avail itself, defendant appeals.
Facts: Defendant filed a second amended cross-complaint in two causes of action, the first cause of action predicated upon plaintiff's breach of a contract giving defendant the exclusive right to sell plaintiff's product in a given area; the second cause of action predicated upon the theory that plaintiff had breached its warranty with defendant guaranteeing that merchandise purchased from plaintiff would be in good order.
Omitting the title of the court and cause the second amended cross-complaint reads as follows:
"The defendant and Cross-Plaintiff alleges:
Plaintiff filed a demurrer to both counts of the second amended cross-complaint on the ground that each cause of action was uncertain and unintelligible in that it could not be ascertained from the facts alleged in either cause of action in what manner defendant had been damaged. The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Defendant having failed to amend within the period allowed by the court, an order dismissing the second amended cross-complaint was entered.
[1] Question: Was the demurrer to the second amended cross-complaint on the ground of uncertainty and unintelligibility properly sustained?
Yes. A mere reading of the second amended cross-complaint shows that facts are not alleged in either purported cause of action from which it is possible to ascertain how or in what manner defendant was damaged by the alleged breach of contract by plaintiff.
Where, as in the instant case, damages do not necessarily result from the wrongful breach of a contract, an injured party must specifically plead the facts showing the damage which has resulted to him because of the wrongful act of the other party to the contract, and a general allegation of damages is insufficient as against a special demurrer for uncertainty and/or unintelligibility. ( Judson Mfg. Co. v. Lutge, 174 Cal. 566, 567 [ 163 P. 1017]; Hamberger-Polhemus Co. v. Hind, Rolph Co., 81 Cal.App. 624, 627 [4] et seq. [ 254 P. 615].)
For the foregoing reasons the order is affirmed.
Moore, P.J., and Fox, J., concurred.