Stephen Johnson Field

“ On the 15th of November he possessed all the right to the land which he ever possessed, and, assuming that the defendant then failed to make the payment which he had agreed to make, all the damage suffered by the plaintiff was the difference between the value of the right, as stipulated to be paid, and the amount which could then have been obtained on its saled. The measure of damages for breach of a contract of sale of land by the purchaser is the difference between the contract price and the salable value of the property. ”

“ It would seem that if a right to purchase land, for however short a perlod, is vested in one, it is a valuable right, and is, in that sense, property, and, in the absence of express prohibition, would be therefore assignable. ”

“ Assuming that the plaintiff had acquired a vested right to complete the proceedings for the purchase of the land desired and to secure a patent for it, and that such right was not personal to him, but was transferable to another without the assent of the state authorities, he did not show that he had suffered any damages by the failure of the defendant to comply with the contract for the right to purchase the land. ”