Case Manuf Co v. Soxman
Decision Date | 02 March 1891 |
Citation | 138 U.S. 431,11 S.Ct. 360,34 L.Ed. 1019 |
Parties | CASE MANUF'G CO. v. SOXMAN et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Case Manufacturing Company, plaintiff in error, is a corporation located at the city of Columbus, state of Ohio, and engaged in the manufacture and sale of flour milling machinery. On the 8th of December, 1883, an order was sent to its home office, received and approved on the 11th of December, which order, omitting immaterial matters, was, with the acceptance, as follows:
'(Form No. 2.)
running time in which to test them, when, if found up to your guaranty, we will settle for the same by paying 2,000 dollars cash, 2,000 dollars by note due 12 months after accepting of the machinery, and 4,000 dollars by note due 18 months, at 6 per cent. interest. You to guarantee that, with necessary power and proper management, the machines shall have capacity for from 100 to 110 barrels of flour in twenty-four hours; that they shall perform the work they are intended to do as well as any machines now in use for the same purpose, and the results to be equal to those obtained from any of the roller or other modern systems of milling now in use in this country using the same grades of wheat and an equivalent line of machinery. We agree to be responsible for any damage or loss by fire or otherwise to said machines after they reach us, and agree to make no claims for damages on account of delays incident to starting up said mill. The title to said machines shall remain in, and not pass from, you until the same are paid for, and until all the notes given therefor are fully paid; and, in default of payment as above agreed, you or your agent may take possession of and remove said machines without legal process. LATROBE MILLING CO. P. H. SOXMAN, Pres. H. C. BEST, Sec'y. D. J. SOXMAN, Treas. P. O. address, Latrobe, county of Westmoreland, state of Pennsylvania. Shipping address, Latrobe, county of Westmoreland, state of Pennsylvania.
On the 20th of October, 1884, the machinery having all been furnished and the mill started, a settlement was made by the purchasers with the same agent of plaintiff, Davis, who had negotiated the sale in the first instance. Having already paid $1,000, a check was given for $1,000 more, which was paid, and two notes, one for $2,000, due in one year, and one for $4,000, due in eighteen months. These notes were not signed with the name of the Latrobe Milling Company, but were signed, —with the seal bearing the name, 'Latrobe Milling Company, Limited,' impressed upon it. The agent brought these notes and money back to Columbus, and turned them over to Mr. Shough, then acting manager, (Mr. Watson, the president, being ill.) The contract was made when Mr. Watson was both president and the active manager of the affairs of the company. On receiving these notes Mr. Shough, dissatisfied with their form, wrote this letter:
Subsequently the milling company sent the following letter:
To which letter the plaintiff returned this reply:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Woodson County, Kan.
... ... and overruled the demurrer. The fidelity company then ... answered, the case was tried by the court without a jury, and ... a judgment was rendered against the company ... Runkle v. Burnham, 153 U.S. 216, 225, 14 Sup.Ct ... 837, 38 L.Ed. 694; Case Mfg. Co. v. Soxman, 138 U.S ... 431, 438, 11 Sup.Ct. 360, 34 L.Ed. 1019. No motion, request ... or act of this ... ...
-
Seymour v. Bank of Minnesota
... ... liability of the stockholders in the bank. The case was tried ... before Otis, J., who made findings of fact and conclusions of ... law, and ordered ... 37, 45; Lyman v ... President, 12 How. 225, 243; Case Mnfg. Co. v ... Soxman, 138 U.S. 431; Geib v. Reynolds, supra. The great ... weight of authority is in favor of the rule ... ...
-
United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
...216, 225, 14 S. Ct. 837, 38 L. Ed. 694; Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U. S. 71, 13 S. Ct. 481, 37 L. Ed. 373; Case Mfg. Co. v. Soxman, 138 U. S. 431, 438, 11 S. Ct. 360, 34 L. Ed. 1019; Hathaway v. First Nat. Bank, 134 U. S. 494, 10 S. Ct. 608, 33 L. Ed. 1004; Allen v. St. Louis Bank, 120 U. S. 20......
-
Finlay v. Swirsky
... ... Lowrey v ... Hawaii, 206 U.S. 206, 27 S.Ct. 622, 51 L.Ed. 1026; ... Case Mfg. Co. v. Soxman, 138 U.S. 431, 437, 11 S.Ct ... 360, 34 L.Ed. 1019; Union Pacific Ry. v ... ...