RECOVERY FOR CONSEQUENCES OF AN ACT, 83 But usually the act of injury is more difficult to determine. If the complaint is, for instance, that defendant by personally injuring plaintiff caused him to lose the benefit of a contract he expected to make, this loss of contract is a resultant of two forces, — willing- ness of A to contract with B, and absence of B. The act of injury is defendant's only if he is responsible for this combination of cir- cumstances; his connection or want of connection with one factor is immaterial. If the complaint is for loss of a contract for the resale of an article at an advanced price, because of defendant's breach of contract to furnish the article, the factors of the com- bination which caused the loss seem to be the existence of a con- tract for resale at an advanced price, and inability of the present plaintiff to perform it; the latter factor being composed of two elements, — non-delivery of the goods by defendant, and inability to get them elsewhere. If defendant is to pay damages for the loss, he must be shown to be legally responsible for this combination.^ If the complaint is of loss of use of a mill besause defendant, a carrier, delayed transportation of a piece of machinery, the act of injury is a combination of intention to run the mill, inability to run it without such a piece of machinery, absence of the piece, and inability to get another like it. Defendant must be responsible for the combination of all these circumstances if he is to be made liable for the loss of use.^ 3. In examining the responsibility for a given result, we must first determine the legal responsibility for the combination which directly led to the result.^ If responsibility for this combination is fixed upon a defendant, he is Hable for the result which follows, however surprising, and however far removed from what was in the defendant's mind at the time the force was set in motion by him. Defendant rescued one who was imprisoned in a civil suit; he is liable for the amount of the creditor's claim, no matter what it was.* Defendant caused water to pour into plaintift's mine; he is respon- 1 See Grebert-Borgnis v. Nugent, 15 Q. B. Div. 85 ; Hindez'. Liddell, L. R. 10 Q. B. 265 ; Elbinger Actien-Gesellschaft v. Armstrong, L. R. 9 Q. B. 473 ; Home v. Midland Ry., L. R. 7 C. P. 583, 8 C. P. 131 ; Booth v. Spuyten-Duyvil R. M. Co., 60 N. Y. 487 ; McHose V. Fulmer, 73 Pa. 363. 2 See Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341, 23 L. J. Ex. 179; N. Y. & C. Mining Co. v. Eraser, 130 U. S. 611.
- Often called, in scholasticlanguage, causa proxima ox causa causans. I have called
it the act of injury.
- Kentz/. Kelvvay, Lane, 70.
