
    FOOD TRADE PUB. CO. v. HARNISHFEGER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 24, 1904.)
    1. Contract for Advertising—Breach—Damages.
    After defendant, who has contracted to advertise in plaintiff’s periodical, notifies plaintiff that he refuses to fulfill the contract, plaintiff may not continue publication, and recover the contract price, but is only entitled to damages.
    1f 1. See Contracts, vol. 11, Cent. Dig. § 1512.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
    
      Action by the Food Trade Publishing Company against Wilhelmine Harnishfeger, executrix. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and SCOTT and BLANCHARD, JJ.
    Hoyn & Covington, for appellant
    John E. Roeser, for respondent.
   SCOTT, J.

Upon notification by defendant’s decedent that he refused to fulfill the contract on his part, the plaintiff’s assignor should have discontinued the publication of the advertisement. It had no right to proceed after such countermand. Mendell v. Willyoung, 42 Misc. Rep. 210, 85 N. Y. Supp. 647. For the unexpired term of the contract the plaintiff’s only claim was for damages. No proof of such damages was offered. Therefore there was nothing on which to base any larger judgment than was rendered.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.  