Canton Union Coal Co. v. Parlin & Orendorff Co.

• Decision Date: 17 April 1905
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CANTON UNION COAL CO. v. PARLIN & ORENDORFF CO.

215 Ill. 244

74 N.E. 143

CANTON UNION COAL CO.

v.PARLIN & ORENDORFF CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 17, 1905.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Third District.

Action by Canton Union Coal Company against the Parlin & Orendorff Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Chiperfield & Chiperfield, for appellant.

Lucien Gray, for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Appellant, a partnership, brought this suit in the circuit court of Fulton county in assumpsit against appellee, a corporation, and the declaration consisted of the common counts. Upon a trial plaintiff's claim was for coal sold and delivered under a written contract dated July 3, 1902, by which plaintiff agreed to furnish to the defendant its requirements of coal (except 60,000 bushels, to be purchased elsewhere) up to July 1, 1903, at certain prices stated in the contract. The defense made was under a plea of accord and satisfaction, which alleged that the defendant delivered to plaintiff, and plaintiff accepted of it, the defendant's check on the First National Bank of Canton in the sum of $470.67 in full satisfaction and discharge of the several promises and sums of money mentioned in the declaration. At the close of the evidence the court directed the jury to find for the defendant, and a verdict was returned accordingly, upon which judgment was entered. Upon appeal to the Appellate Court for the Third District the judgment was affirmed, and a further appeal was prosecuted to this court.

The facts were not in dispute, and the only question was what inferences might justifiably be drawn therefrom. If the facts necessarily led to the conclusion that there had been an accord and satisfaction, there was no error in directing a verdict for the defendant; but if different conclusions as to the ultimate fact might reasonably be drawn from the facts proved, the issue should have been submitted to the jury. Plaintiff was bound by the contract to furnish defendant's requirements of coal from July 3, 1902, to July 1, 1903, with the exception above stated, and more than 10,000 tons were furnished under the contract. At various times during the period covered by the contract the defendant complained that plaintiff was not furnishing sufficient coal to meet defendant's requirements, and notified plaintiff that it had been compelled to go into the open market and buy coal at higher prices, and would hold plaintiff responsible for the losses occasioned by its default. At different times plaintiff was requested to deliver larger quantities of coal, and on January 8, 1903, defendant wrote to plaintiff that it had repeatedly written, and advised that its requirements were greater than the amount being furnished; that plaintiff had replied that it would furnish only one car per day; that defendant expected plaintiff to comply with the contract, and that the failure to do so had caused defendant to pay prices in advance of the contract price. The letter requested a delivery of two cars of coal per day, and stated that defendant would hold plaintiff responsible for loss and damage by way of cost and expense occasioned by the alleged default. Some coal was furnished after July 1, 1903, and on July 25th the defendant sent to the plaintiff a statement of the account according to defendant's claim, with what was called a credit memorandum for coal received in July, 1903, and a debit memorandum of coal claimed to have been purchased in the open market at market prices above the contract prices, amounting to $1,350, which sum was charged to the plaintiff. The statement and accompanying memoranda showed a balance of $470.67 due to plaintiff, for which a check on the First National Bank of Canton, Ill., was inclosed, pinned to the following letter:

‘Canton, Ill., July 25, 1903. Canton Union Coal Co., Town-Gentlemen: Enclosed please find our check on the First National Bank of Canton, No. 19,348, $470.67, in full of account, together with our statement attached. We also enclose debit memorandum for the difference between contract price and what we were obliged to pay in open market for coal purchased during the period of the contract with you, on account of your failure to supply our requirements according to such contract. You will also find enclosed credit memorandum for coal received during July for which you have furnished no invoice. Please acknowledge receipt and oblige. Yours truly, Parlin & Orendorff Co., by L. H. Gillett, Asst. Treas.’

The check, with the letter and inclosures, was received by Joseph Simmons, the bookkeeper for plaintiff. He put the check in plaintiff's safe, and made out a statement to the defendant of its account as shown by the plaintiff's books. Upon that account he credited the check, which left a balance due, according to the statement, of $1,470.09. The balance claimed on the trial was $1,460.48. Simmons took the statement to defendant's office, and there met U. G. Orendorff, its secretary and treasurer. Simmons said that he had brought a statement of balance due, to which Orendorff replied that he did not own plaintiff anything. Simmons said that he did, and laid the statement down before him, and said: ‘Here is the balance due July 1st, and the cars and amount shipped in July, and figured at a different price than you have, which amounts to so much, and I have given you credit on account for...