■Wrongful  728..  Where  the  claim  for  damages  is  apart  from  contract,  as  for

of  goods.  a  wrongful  act  done  to  the  goods,  the  rule  which  excludes  losses
that  arise  from  special  circumstances,  not  anticipated  beforehand,
does  not  apply.  If  the  plaintiff  has  been  wrongfully  deprived  of
goods  which  he  could  not  replace,  and  if  they  had  a  peculiar  value
to  him,  or  if  through  want  of  them  he  has  sustained  a  special
detriment,  he  is  entitled  to  compensation  for  the  loss  of  that  value,
or  for  that  detriment,  although  the  wrongdoer  may  have  had  no
notice  of  the  circumstances  which  caused  it  (s).  "  The  actual  value
is  fixed  by  circumstances  at  the  time  of  the  demand,  and  no  notice

{p)  The  Oneida,  128  Fed.  B.  687.  suggest  that  there  is  this  difference,  that

,1  s.wm'a  s  320  "^  oases  of  tort  the  inquiry  is  whether

the  damage  was  the  natural  consequence

(r)  See  Ewbank  v.  Nutting,  7  C.  B.  of  the  tort  under  the  circumstances  in

797 ;  Acatos  v.  Bums,  3  Ex.  D.  282.  fact  existing  ;  while  in  cases  of  contract

(s)  Bodley  v.  Reynolds,  8  Q.  B.  779  ;  only  those  cironmatances  are  to  be  taken

Wood  -0.  BeU,  25  L.   J.,  Q.   B.   148;  into  account  which  may  reasonably  be

France  v.  Graudet,  L.  E.,  6  Q.  B.  199.  supposed  to  have  been  within  the  con-

"  The  rule  with  regard  to  remoteness  of  templation    of    the   parties.      See   per

damage  is  precisely  the  same  whether  Kennedy ,  J. ,  in  Dulieu  «.  WHte,  (1901)

the  damages  are  claimed  in  actions  of  2  K.  B.  p.  679  ;  and  per  Collins,  M.  K.,

contract  or  of  tort."    Per  Brett,  M.  E.,  in  Dunham  v.  Clare,  (1902)  2  K.  B.
