Richmond Ice Co v. Crystal Ice Co
Citation | 99 Va. 285,38 S.E. 141 |
Parties | RICHMOND ICE CO. v. CRYSTAL ICE CO. |
Decision Date | 14 March 1901 |
Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
CONTRACTS—NONCOMPLIANCE—EXCUSE.
1. An ice company, undertaking to furnish ice to another company from day to day out of its surplus product, which was not to interfere with a previous contract to furnish ice to a third company, was not relieved of liability for failure to comply with such undertaking by the mere fact that it did not have a surplus on hand; but, knowing that the buyer was bound, subject to a penalty, to furnish the ice to others, it was its duty to exercise ordinary diligence in keeping a surplus on hand.
2. An ice company undertaking to furnish ice from day to day from its surplus product to another company, which was to pay for a certain amount whether taken or not, cannot recover for ice not taken, the failure to take being caused by the first company's neglect to keep a surplus and furnish the amount required from day to day.
Appeal from law and equity court of city of Richmond.
Action by the Richmond Ice Company against the Crystal Ice Company. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
S. S. P. Patteson, for plaintiff in error.
Leake & Carter, for defendant in error.
Both the demand asserted by the plaintiff in his declaration and the set-off filed by the defendant arise out of alleged breaches of an agreement in writing between the parties, which is as follows:
Nov. 30, 1902—furnish the said party of the second part, to be sold by it to the Mutual Ice Delivery Company, six thousand (6, 000) tons of ice per annum, on the following terms and conditions:
At the time the agreement was entered Into the Mutual Ice Delivery Company, mentioned therein, was engaged in selling and delivering ice to consumers, and had a contract with the plaintiff, the defendant, and two other companies or firms to furnish the ice which It needed to supply its customers. By that contract the plaintiff was bound to furnish 32 per cent., the defendant 38 per cent, and each of the other two companies 15 per cent, of the Ice required by the Mutual Ice Delivery Company for its purposes.
The plaintiff neither manufactured nor put up ice. Being under the necessity, therefore, of purchasing ice to keep and perform its contract with the Mutual Ice Delivery Company, it entered into the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Gourley v. American Hardwood Lumber Company
-
Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Company v. Tarvin
...will not excuse delay or nondelivery according to contract, 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 1087; 32 Am. Dec. 518 and note on p. 520; 99 Va. 285; 102 Wisc. OPINION HILL, C. J. Tarvin desired to install a telephone system at the town of New Lewisville, and entered into contract with the app......
- Hughes v. Williams