Works v. Va. Banner Coal Corp.
Decision Date | 20 January 1927 |
Citation | 136 S.E. 673 |
Parties | MATHIESON ALKALI WORKS et al. v. VIRGINIA BANNER COAL CORPORATION et al. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Proportion.]
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Requirement.]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dickenson County.
Suit by the Virginia Banner Coal Corporation and others against the Mathieson Alkali Works and others. From a decree construing the contract, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Hutton & Hutton, of Abingdon, Buchanan & Buchanan, of Marion, White, Penn & Stuart, of Abingdon, Rushmore, Bisbee & Stern, of New York City, for appellants.
W. H. Rouse and W. H. Robertson, both of Bristol, for appellees.
This cause has twice before reached this court upon appeal. The first appeal was dismissed by the appellant (alkali works), the second appeal was dismissed by this court as improvidently awarded (see Mathieson Alkali Works v. Virginia Banner Coal Corp., etc., 140 Va. S9, 124 S. E. 470). The practical result of this decision was that the chancellor should have construed the contract, which was the basis of the controversy between the alkali works and the coal corporation, before referring the cause to a commissioner to take proof on the issues raised therein. Upon receipt of the mandate from this court, the trial court vacated the order of reference, and by decree entered on August 28, 1925, after the taking of much evidence introduced by both parties, the purpose of which was to assist the court in the construction of the contract, construed the contract against the contention of the alkali works. The present appeal is from this decree, and the question involved is the correctness of the construction adopted by the trial court.
In 1917 the coal company owned a lease for a long term on a boundary of coal land, but it had neither funds, plant, nor equipment to mine coal, and hence was producing none.
The alkali works was an established manufacturing industry, operating a large plant, and using a large quantity of coal.
On September 1, 1917, a written contract was entered into between the alkali works and the coal company, which provided, in substance, as follows:
If (for certain exempting causes) the coal corporation is unable to so deliver, or the alkali works is unable to use, said coal, then, and to the extent only of such inability, either, as the case may be, shall be relieved of its agreement to deliver or to take said coal during the period of said' preventing causes.
(e) If the coal corporation for any other than the foregoing causes fail for seven or more consecutive days so to deliver to the alkali works its average daily requirements, then the alkali works shall have the absolute right to purchase in the open market the coal required by it, and charge the coal corporation with the difference between the contract price and the price paid in the open market, plus all additional costs incurred, or losses resulting from said failure; and the alkali works may cancel the whole contract, if said excesses and losses shall not be paid in five days after demand.
(f) If the coal corporation's failure so to deliver continues for a period of 30 days or longer, the alkali works during the remainder of the term of the contract shall receive its said requirements of coal at actual cost of production.
Third, (a and c) To secure to the alkali works the performance of this agreement of the coal corporation to deliver coal as herein provided and the right to manage the affairs of the coal corporation, the stockholders were required to deposit and pledge with proxies attached 60 per cent. of the authorized capital stock of the coal corporation with the alkali works, on condition (inter alia) that, if the coal corporation fail to deliver the average coal requirement as herein provided for a period of 30 days or longer (excluding exempted periods), then and in such event the alkali works shall have the right to take and have full and complete power of voting 60 per cent. of the capital stock for the remainder of the term of the contract at all stockholders' meetings of the coal corporation.
Fourth. This section provides for the arbitration of questions relative to performance of the contract, quantities to be delivered, failures to deliver, costs, right of alkali works to take the stock, etc.
The original bill was filed by the coal company alleging various breaches of the contract of September 1, 1917, which was exhibited with the bill, claiming large damages therefor, and also alleging an effort on the part of the alkali works to work the financial ruin of the coal company. The bill insisted that the contract required the alkali works to take 200, 000 tons of coal per annum, and averred its willingness and ability to perform the contract as to quantity, quality, and grades of coal to be furnished by it. The bill also prayed for a mandatory injunction to require the alkali works, in the future, to re-ceive and pay for 200, 000 tons of coal per annum, and also a large sum of money for having failed theretofore to take coal from it at that rate.
Subsequently, the alkali works filed its answer and cross-bill, claiming large damages for alleged breaches of the contract of September 1, 1917, on the part of the coal company.
The coal company then filed its answer to the cross-bill, in which it undertook to deny every affirmative allegation of new matter set up in the cross-bill. The cross-bill had set up the construction by the alkali works of the contract of September 1, 1917, on the subjects of (1) the quantity of coal the contract required the alkali works to purchase of the coal company annually; (2) the price per ton to be paid by the alkali works; and (3) the quality of coal to be furnished by the coal company. The answer of the coal company denied that the alkali works had put the proper construction upon the contract, and set out in detail its construction thereof. It will thus be seen that the parties are at issue upon the construction of clause (a) of the "second" section of the contract, which relates to the quantity and quality of the coal contracted for, and they are at issue as to the construction of clause (b) of the "second" section of the contract as to the price of the coal. Thus we have presented...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works
...this court on three previous appeals. See Mathieson Alkali Works Virginia Banner Coal Corporation, 140 Va. 89, 124 S.E. 470; Id., 147 Va. 125, 136 S.E. 673. It is now before this court on an appeal from the final decree entered on November 4, The Honorable A. G. Lively, judge of the Circuit......
-
In re Franklin Equipment Co.
...to explain or supplement a written contract unless the court finds the writing is ambiguous. E.g., Mathieson Alkali Works v. Virginia Banner Coal Corp., 147 Va. 125, 136 S.E. 673 (1927). This rule, however, has been changed by the Uniform Commercial Code which Virginia has adopted. The Code......
-
Potts v. Works
...court on three previous appeals. [See Mathieson Alkali Works v. Virginia Banner Coal Corporation, 140 Va. 89, 124 S. E. 470; Id., 147 Va. 125, 136 S. E. 673]. It is now before this court on an appeal from the final decree entered on November 4, 1933. The Honorable A. G. Lively, judge of the......
-
Berkeley County Public Service Dist. v. Vitro Corp. of America
...26 A.L.R.2d 1099 et seq.; Smoot v. United States, 237 U.S. 38, 42, 35 S.Ct. 540, 59 L.Ed. 829; Mathieson Alkali Works v. Virginia Banner Coal Corp., 147 Va. 125, 136 S.E. 673; Elk Refining Co. v. Falling Rock Cannel Coal Co., 92 W.Va. 479, 115 S.E. 431. In construing a requirement contract ......