The plaintiff's right is to recover such damages as the defendant's wrong necessarily caused him. It is usually said that the plaintiff is under a duty to mitigate damages; but the truth in the Massachusetts case. In accord with the Michigan and Nebraska decisions is Dulude v. Jutras, 18 Quebec S. G. 327. On the other hand, a decision similar in principle to the earlier Massachusetts case, is St. John v. St. John, 223 Mass. 137, 111 N. E. 719, 720. The defendant promised the plaintiff one-half of a certain mortgage note upon her return to his home to make a home for him. He remarried and voluntarily abandoned the home later, and the court held her entitled to the full amount. The contingency of his remarriage, "as well as the possibility that he might die before the full consideration had been actually earned were not guarded against and form no part of the contract. Having complied with the condition we see no reason why she should not recover the amount stipulated. Gardner v. Dennison, 217 Mass. 492, 105 N. £. 359, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1108; Gun-ther v. Gunther, 181 Mass. 217, 63 N. E. 402; White v. Solomon, 164 Mass. 516, 42 N. £. 104, 30 L. R. A. 537; Earle v. Angell, 157 Mass. 294, 32 N. E. 164."
55 Brant v. Gallup, 111 HI. 487, 53 Am. Rep. 638. See also Grindle v. Eastern Exp. Co., 67 Me. 317, 34 Am. Rep. 31.
56 Thomas v. Funkhouser, 91 Ga. 478,18 8. E. 312; Latham, etc., Go. v. Harrod, 71 Kans. 565, 81 Pac. 214; Everett v. O'Leary, 90 Minn. 154, 95 N. W. 901.
57 Dryer v. Lewis, 57 Ala. 551. See afeo Thompson v. Shattuck, 2 Mete. 615.
58 British, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Underground Electric, etc., Co.,  1
K. B. 576 (rev'd  A. C. 673, on the ground that positive benefit derived from the purchase of machines of a different kind from those contracted for should be taken into account); Fuerst v. Polasky, 249 Fed. 447, 162 C. C. A. 13; Hitchcock v. Hunt, 28 Conn. 343; Oliver v. Hawley, 5 Neb. 439; Uhlig v. Barnum, 43 Neb. 584, 61 N. W. 749; Carson v. Bunting, 154 N. C. 530, 70 S. E. 923.
59 Bridgeport v. JStna Indemnity Co., (Conn. 1919), 105 Atl. 680.
not buy the goods elsewhere for cash when the seller makes default, and base his damages on the price thus paid plus interest for the period of credit to which he was entitled under the broken contract, but may make the best terms he can for a new contract with a like period of credit.60 So where a contract for future delivery of goods specified only by general description is repudiated, the injured party should not be obliged to make a similar contract on account of the repudiator, though he may be justified in so doing, for he is entitled to make for his own account as many similar contracts, in addition to that with the defendant, as his capital and credit will allow.61