Breach of a contract to lend money for whatever period at the current rate of interest, or at whatever rate of interest for no definite time, involves no legal damage,32 unless consequential damages are recoverable. It will frequently happen that the borrower is unable to get money elsewhere and if the defendant had notice of the purpose for which the money was desired he will be liable for damages caused by the plaintiff's inability to carry out his purpose if performance of the promise would have enabled him to do so.33 In any event the defendant
29 Rolin v. Steward, 14 C. B. 505; Hunt Nat. Bank v. Ober, 178 Fed. 678, 102 C. C. A. 178; Atlanta Nat. Bank v. Davis, 96 Ga, 334, 23 8. E. 190, 51 Am. St. Rep. 139; Spearing v. Whitney Central Nat. Bank, 129 U. 607, 56 So. 548; Peabody v. Citi-wrf State Bank, 98 Minn. 302, 108 N. W. 272; Patterson v. Marine Nat. Bank, 130 Pa. 419, 18 Atl. 632, 17 Am. St Rep. 778; Lorick v. Palmetto, etc, Trust Co., 74 S. C. 185, 54 S. E. 206; Dean v. Melbourne, etc., Co., 16 Vict. L. R. 403. See also Fleming v Bank,  A. C. 577.
30 See Page v. Franklin, 214 Mass. 552, 101 N. E. 1084; Banewur v. levenson, 171 Mass. 1, 50 N. E. 10.
31 Marburg v. Marburg, 26 Md. 8, 90 Am. Dec. 84; Nickerson v. Soesman, 98 Mass. 364; Sheehan v. Dalrymple, 19 Mich. 239; Fabbri v. Kalbflekch,
52 N. Y. 28; Benners v. Clemens, 58 Pa. 24. Foreign money is not for every purpose an ordinary chattel. It may possess the quality of negotiability even by a thief. Brown v. Perera, 183 N. Y. App. D. 892, 176 N. Y. S. 215; cf. Reisfeld v. Jacobs, 107 N. Y. Misc. 1, 176 N. Y. S. 223.
32 Kelly v. Fahrney, 97 Fed. 176, 38 C. C. A. 103; Bixby-Theirson Lumber Co. v. Evans, 167 Ala. 431, 435, 52 So. 843, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 194; 140 Am. St. Rep. 47; Savings Bank 9. Asbury, 117 Cal. 96, 48 Pao. 1081; Turpie v. Lowe, 114 Ind. 37, 15 N. E. 834; Lowe v. Turpie, 147 Ind. 652, 44 N. E. 25, 47 N. E. 150, 37 L. R. A. 233; Bradford, etc., R. v. New York, etc., R., 123 N. Y. 316 25 N. E. 499, 11 L. R. A. 116.
33 Manchester k Oldham Bank v. Cook, 49 L. T. (N. S.) 674; Banewur is liable in consequential damages, for any reasonable expense incurred in getting another loan,34
Where a purchaser of goods promises to give a negotiable instrument payable in the future for them, though aside from the doctrine of anticipatory breach the seller has not generally been allowed to sue for the price of the goods immediately if the buyer failed to give the negotiable instrument as agreed,35 an action will lie for breach of the special promise to give the negotiable instrument, and in such an action the damages are fixed by the amount of the agreed instrument.36 It would seem that interest should be rebated from this amount if the agreed maturity of the instrument was fixed for a later day than that on which the trial occurs.37 Where as part of an executory contract there is a promise to give security and breach of this promise involves breach of the entire contract, the measure of damages is properly the value of the security to the promisee, and this is prima facie the amount of the sum to be secured.38 Where the failure to give a negotiable instrument, or security of v. Levenson, 171 Mass. 1, 60 N. E. 10; Holt v. United Security L. Ins. Co., 76 N. J. L. 686, 72 Atl. 301, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 691; Treanor v. New York Breweries Co., 61 N. Y. Misc. 607, 101 N. Y. S. 189; Goldsmith v. Holland Trust Co., 6 N. Y. App. Div. 104, 38 N. Y. S. 1032; Doushkess v. Burger Brewing Co., 20 N. Y. App. Div. 375, 47 N. Y. S. 312; Murphy v. Banna, 37 N. Dak. 166, 164 N. W. 32; Equitable Mortgage Co. v. Thorn (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 276; Graham v. McCoy, 17 Wash. 63, 48 Pac. 780, 49 Pac. 236; cf. Levinsky v. Middlesex, etc., Co., 92 Fed. 449, 34 C. C. A. 462; Bixby-Theirson Lumber Co. v. Evans, 167 Ala. 431, 62 So. 843, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 194; Towles v. Cincinnati, etc., Co., 146 Ky. 301, 142S. W. 401; Spies v. Mutual Trust Co., 268 Pa, 414, 102 AtL 119.
34Prehn v. Royal Bank, L. R. 6 Ex. 92; Bohemian-American Assoc. v. Northern Bank, 120 N. Y. S. 134;
Hoch 0. Braxmar, 109 N. Y. App. Div. 209, 95 N. Y. S. 647.
35 See infra, Sec. 1471.
36 American Manufacturing Co. v. Klarquist, 47 Minn. 344, 60 N. W. 243; Deering v. Johnson, 86 Minn. 172, 90 N. W. 363; Bowman v. Branson, 111 Mo. 343,19 S. W. 634; Hanna v. Mills, 21 Wend. 90, 34 Am. Dec 216; Rinehart v. Olwine, 5 Watts k S. 167; Standard Lumber Co. v. Deer Park Lumber Co., 104 Wash. S4, 176 Pac. 578, 176 Pac. 332.
37 It was so held in Hanna v. Mills, 21 Wend. 90, 34 Am. Dec. 216, but the contrary was held in Bowman v. Branson, 111 Mo. 343, 19 S. W. 634.
38 Barron v. Muffin, 21 Minn. 374; Dye v. Forbes, 34 Minn. 13, 24 N. W. 309; Schmaltz v. Weed, 27 N. Y. App. D. 309, 60 N. Y. S. 168, and the same measure was applied where a third person broke a promise to give security for a promised loan to another, in consequence of which the loan was not made. Rider p. Pond, 19 N. Y. 262.
a different sort, involves the entire breach of a contract which would ultimately require payment of the sum for which the instrument was given or the security pledged this measure of damages seems accurate, but though laid down broadly in the cases, the correctness of the rule seems open to question unless judgment in the case will merge not only the obligation primarily sued upon, but also all right upon the contract or debt to which the security relates.