In order to illustrate all matters pertaining to the damages suffered by plaintiffs by reason of the malicious and wanton trespasses of defendants, having broken up said dairy business for the season, it was legal and proper to introduce evidence tending to show the nature and character of that business, and the profits usually realized upon a given number of cows used for dairy purposes in that locality. (White v. Moseley, 8 Pick. 326; Allison v. Chandler , 11 Mich. 542; Douty v. Bird, 60 Penn. St. 48; R. & S. R. Co. v. Budlong, 10 How. Prac. 290; Housee v. Hammond, 39 Barb. 94; Woodbeck v. Wilders , 18 Cal. 131.)
Such is now the well-established rule in cases of willful wrongs. In Walraith v. Redfield (11 Barb. 329), and Barnard v. Poor (21 Pick. 381), the courts expressly base their decisions upon the facts--appearing in those cases--that " there was no reason to suppose the injury was willful or wanton ."
OPINION By the Court:
The court below erred in permitting the plaintiffs, against the objection of the defendants, to prove, by way of enhancing the damages, the profits they would or might have made from hogs and cows they did not have nor had ever made arrangements to procure. They were permitted to prove that the ranch would have supported sixty cows for dairy purposes, and how much butter these cows would probably have produced and its value, and the probable increase of the cows and its value, and that the ranch would also have supported a certain number of hogs and the probable profits from fattening them. But it appeared that the plaintiffs owned only three cows, and had contracted to hire from thirty to thirty-five from Swales, only seven of which had been delivered, and there was no proof that Swales had in all more than twenty which he could have delivered. It is not pretended that the plaintiffs had made arrangements for any other cows, or for any hogs whatever. Under this state of facts it was error to permit them to prove the profits they could possibly have made from sixty cows and from fattening hogs. The damages were too remote and purely speculative.
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.