Chapman v. Kansas City, C. & S. R. Co.
Decision Date | 13 March 1893 |
Citation | 114 Mo. 542,21 S.W. 858 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | CHAPMAN et al. v. KANSAS CITY, C. & S. R. CO. |
Appeal from circuit court, Dade county; D. P. Stratton, Judge.
Action by J. H. Chapman and another against the Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Wallace Pratt, C. B. McAfee, and J. C. Cravens, for appellant. B. G. Boone, Mann & Talbutt, Geo. L. Mann, and Thurman & Wray, for respondents.
This is a suit to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. The defendant railroad company, acting through its agent, H. P. Jacques, and William Chapman, acting for himself, executed the following contract on January 26, 1886: It appears William Chapman cut, or had cut, and delivered, a portion of the ties mentioned in this agreement, but he failed to make full compliance with its terms. He sold out his interest in the contract to J. H. Chapman and C. J Harrison, the plaintiffs in this suit, who proceeded with the work. Mr. Jacques, still acting for the defendant, sent to the plaintiffs the following letter, the terms of which were accepted by them, in writing, on the 30th November, 1886: The plaintiffs completed the first of these contracts about the month of March, 1887, and then proceeded to furnish ties under the renewed contract. The breaches alleged are: First, that defendant failed and refused to accept and pay for 40,000 ties which the plaintiffs had placed on the defendant's right of way; second, that defendant refused to allow the plaintiffs to get out ties under the contract after the 1st July, 1887, whereby they lost a profit of five cents per tie on 180,000. The evidence tends to show that the inspections made under the first contract were very liberal to the plaintiffs; that Mr. Jacques complained of the ties furnished as far back as February, 1887. The plaintiffs, in a letter to him, admitted that the ties furnished south of a stated point on the line of the road were below the average. It appears the defendant made the contract for the purpose of increasing its freight receipts, and intended to sell the ties to other roads. Plaintiffs were informed of this fact; and on the 8th March, 1887, Mr. Jacques gave them full warning that the ties before received were not up to the contract standard, and they must expect a more rigid examination. In the month of July, 1887, the plaintiffs stopped getting out ties, in view of a correspondence between them and Mr. Jacques, but the ties then in the woods were hauled to the right of way for inspection and delivery. A large number were inspected and accepted in January, 1887, again in April of that year, and again in November. The plaintiffs claimed that this last inspection was too close, and they refused to allow the inspectors to go over all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial