In Jackson v. Stanfield, 137 Ind. 592, it is held that evidence is admissible showing anticipated profits, not remote or speculative, not as the measure of damages, but to aid the jury in estimating the extent of the injury sustained.
Summary of this case from Johnson v. R. R7 Div. 36.
January 12, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O. A. Steele, Judge.
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
In Jackson v. Stanfield, 137 Ind. 592, it is held that evidence is admissible showing anticipated profits, not remote or speculative, not as the measure of damages, but to aid the jury in estimating the extent of the injury sustained.
Summary of this case from Johnson v. R. RFull title:C. W. JACKSON v. C. H. STANFIELD et al
Court:Supreme Court of Alabama
Date published: Jan 12, 1932
" The injunction then, must rest upon the principle that it is unlawful, in an effort to compel A to yield a…
Yarber v. IglehartIn our opinion the corret rule is that if a person with knowledge and fraudulent intent induces a party to…