DAMAGES CLAIMED BY GREAT BRITAIN. 221 



No 9. A Ifred Adams, probable catch $19, 250 



No. 10. Ada, probable catch 15, 818 



No. 12. Ju n ia la, estimated catch 9, 424 



No. 13. Pathfinder, estimated catch 1">, 363 



No. 14. Triumph, estimated catch 19, 424 



No. 15. Black Diamond, estiraa ted catch 16, 192 



No. 16. Lily, balance of catch 14, 136 



No. 17. Ariel, balance of estimated catch 9, 248 



No. 18. Kate, balance of catch 10. 960 



No. 19. Minnie, balance of catch 16, 112 



357, 353 



All these items are subject to the objection that they are prospective 

 profits, uncertain and contingent in their nature, and can not be made 

 the basis of a claim for compensation to the owners of these vessels. 



In Sedgwick, on the " Measure of Damages," page (39, sixth American 

 edition, it is said : 



The early cases in both the English and American courts, generally 

 concurred in denying profits as any part of the damage to be compen- 

 sated, whether in cases of contract or tort. 



In a case for illegal capture, where one of the items of the claim for 

 damages was the profits on the voyage broken up by the capture, the 

 court said: 



Independent, however, of all authority, I am satisfied upon principle 

 that an allowance of damages upon the basis of a calculation of profits 

 is inadmissible. The rule would be in the highest degree unfavorable 

 to the interests of the community. The subject would be involved in 

 utter uncertainty. The calculation would proceed upon contingencies 

 and would require a knowledge of foreign markets to an exactness in 

 point of time and value, which would sometimes present embarrassing 

 obstacles. Much would depend upon the length of the voyage and the 

 season of the arrival; much upon the vigilance and activity of the mas- 

 ter, and much upon the momentary demand. After all, it would be a 

 calculation upon conjecture and not upon facts. 1 



In the case of the Amiable Nancy, Mr. Justice Story, speaking for the 

 United States Supreme Court, said : 



Another item is $3,500, for the loss of the supposed profits of the 

 voyage on which the Amiable Nancy was originally bound. In the 

 opinion of the court, this item also was properly rejected. The prob- 

 able or possible benefits of a voyage, as yet in fieri, can never afford a 

 sate rule by which to estimate damages in cases of a marine trespass. 

 There is so much uncertainty in the rule itself, so many contingencies 

 which may vary or extinguish its application, and so many difficul- 

 ties in sustaining its legal correctness, that the court can not believe 

 it proper to entertain it. In several cases in this court, the claim for 



'The schooner Lively, 1 Gallison, 314. 



