Phillips v. Columbus Wholesale Grocery Co.
| Citation | 197 A. 197 |
| Decision Date | 08 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 7874.,7874. |
| Parties | PHILLIPS v. COLUMBUS WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Herbert L. Carpenter, Judge.
Action of assumpsit to recover loss sustained by reason of defendant's refusal to accept flour shipped pursuant to an agreement by Frederick Phillips against Antonio Pennacchia, doing business as the Columbus Wholesale Grocery Company. A verdict was directed for the plaintiff, and defendant brings exception.
Exception overruled and case remitted for entry of judgment on the verdict as directed.
Jacob S. Temkin and Temkin & Temkin, all of Providence, for plaintiff. Thomas J. Paolino, of Providence, for defendant.
In this action of assumpsit the trial justice in the superior court directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff. The case is before this court on the defendant's exception to this ruling.
The plaintiff is a flour broker of Boston, Mass.; the defendant, Antonio Pennacchia, doing business as the Columbus Wholesale Grocery Company, is a wholesale grocer in the city of Providence, in this state. Using a printed form of the "Millers' National Federation Uniform Sales Contract," which was filled out in typewriting to conform with the order and then signed by both parties, the defendant agreed to buy from the plaintiff 210 barrels of flour at $7.25 a barrel, the flour to be packed by the mill in paper bags with the label "Columbus Best" printed thereon.
A typewritten provision of the contract provides that the flour was to be shipped from the mill in Portland, Or., to the plaintiff in Providence by "S. S. Lines * * * upon arrival of the bags in Portland." The contract is dated October 5, 1935, and the flour, packed and marked in conformity with the order, arrived in Providence on December 15, 1935. The defendant refused to accept the flour, claiming that there had been undue delay in delivery. The plaintiff thereupon sold the flour to another Providence concern and now seeks to recover the loss that he sustained by reason of the defendant's refusal to accept the flour, which, with all charges and interest, amounts to $183.86.
The evidence shows that the bags for the defendant's flour, with the words "Columbus Best" printed thereon as required by the defendant, were ordered without delay by the mill from a factory in Wellsburg, W. Va., which manufactured the kind of paper bags used in the flour trade; that the bags reached the mill about October 30, 1935; and that the flour, packed as called for by the contract, was shipped November 12, 1935, on the very next boat that left Portland, Or., for this city after the bags were received by the mill.
The defendant was allowed to testify, without objection, that three days before October 5, 1935, the date of the written contract in this case, the plaintiff told him: "I will get the bags and have it (the flour) shipped on the October 8th boat. * * *" Yet in his letter to the plaintiff of even date with the contract we find him urging the plaintiff to have the mill ship him at once 75 barrels of certain designated stock brands of flour on the boat leaving Portland, Or., October 8, because, as he himself expresses it, "before my Columbus flour comes in it will be a long, long time."
The defendant further testified, also without objection, that he had received...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Industrial Nat. Bank v. Peloso
...absence of fraud or mistake. Id.; Supreme Woodworking Co. v. Zuckerberg, 82 R.I. 247, 107 A.2d 287 (1954); Phillips v. Columbus Wholesale Grocery Co., 60 R.I. 47, 197 A. 197 (1938); Brooks v. Josephson, 47 R.I. 78, 129 A. 812 (1925). A written contract, however, may be modified by a subsequ......
-
Golden Gate Corp. v. Barrington College
...or agreements for the purpose of contradicting, altering, adding to or varying the terms of a written contract. Phillips v. Columbus Wholesale Grocery Co., 60 R.I. 47, 197 A. 197. In holding that such rule is not one of evidentiary but of substantive law, Quinn v. Bernat, 80 R.I. 375, 97 A.......
-
Summit Insurance Co. v. Stricklett
...clause is obvious and it leaves no room for another interpretation and as such, the terms must be applied as written. Phillips, 60 R.I. at 47, 197 A. at 198. Summit received and rejected only one settlement offer, it was over the limit of liability. Because Summit did not reject a written s......
-
Summit Ins. Co. v. Stricklett
...mutual mistake, or other similar cause, the parties are bound by the terms of a written instrument. Phillips v. Columbus Wholesale Grocery Co., 60 R.I. 47, 197 A. 197, 198 (1938). Courts tend to "refrain from engaging in mental gymnastics or from stretching the imagination to read ambiguity......