Chicago St Ry Co v. Hoyt
Decision Date | 17 April 1893 |
Docket Number | No. 180,180 |
Citation | 13 S.Ct. 779,149 U.S. 1,37 L.Ed. 625 |
Parties | CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. HOYT et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Edwin Walker and John W. Cary, for plaintiff in error.
John N. Jewett, for defendants in error.
This action was brought by defendants in error against the plaintiff in error to recover a designated sum of money alleged to be due under the terms of a covenant contained in a certain indenture of lease made and entered into between the parties. The cause was tried by the court below under a written stipulation of the parties, waiving a jury, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs below for the sum of $33,783.83, to reverse which, for errors of law claimed to have been committed by the court in its construction of the covenant, and in the legal conclusions it reached from the facts specially found, this writ of error is prosecuted.
On February 18, 1880, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, (hereafter called the 'Railway Company,') being the owner thereof, leased and demised to the defendants in error lots 3, 4, and 5, of block K, of the original town of Chicago, for a term of 10 years from the 1st day of January, 1881, at an annual rental of $3,850, to be paid quarterly by the lessees, who were also to pay all taxes and assessments that might be levied upon the premises during the term. At the date of the lease the lessees were the owners of the adjoining lots 1 and 2 of the same block, upon which was located an elevator or warehouse, used for receiving, storing, and handling grain, and having a capacity of about 350,000 bushels. The lease was executed under seal of the respective parties thereto, and the material provisions thereof, so far as they relate to the present controversy, are as follows:
By the second article, Hoyt and his associates agreed to erect on said lots 3, 4, and 5 a grain elevator, 'of a storage capacity of 700,000 bushels or more, during the year 1880.' The article provided that the elevator should have all modern improvements, and should be constructed to the satisfaction of the railway company. No question is raised upon this article. The case admits that it was fully executed.
By the third article the railway company 'agrees to lay all necessary tracks adjacent to said elevator, to connect its railway therewith for the purpose of delivering grain in cars thereto, and keep the same in repair during the time of this lease, and agrees to deliver on said tracks, in cars, at said elevator, to the parties of the second part, all the grain that may be brought by its railway, consigned to parties in the city of Chicago, so far as the party of the first part can legally control the same, for handling and storage in said elevator.' The case involves no breach of this article.
By the fourth article it is provided as follows: The case involves no violation of this article by either of the parties.
The 5th, 6th, and 7th articles, taking them in their order, relate (1) to the charges to be made for the storage and handling of grain, certain elevators accommodating the grain business of competing railways being referred to as a standard; (2) to the rebuilding of the elevator in case of its destruction by fire or other casualty, and that the 'parties of the second part will save the said party of the first part free and harmless from all loss or damage by fire to said elevator or contents during the continuance of this lease;' and (3) to the weighing of the grain received into the elevator, and the appointment of weighers. In all these respects the case presents no question of controversy.
The last clause of the seventh article reads as follows: 'It is further agreed that the parties of the second part will at all times keep a force at said elevators sufficient to transact all business that may be offered by said party of the first part, and that cars of grain will be received and unloaded, when the business of the party of the first part requires it, in the nighttime or on Sundays, and that said business shall be dispatched with equal and as great facility in that respect as at any of the elevators in the city of Chicago, above mentioned, so as not to delay the cars of the party of the first part unreasonably or unnecessarily.'
It is upon the alleged breach of the eighth article of the contract that this suit is brought. That article reads as follows:
The remaining articles of the contract, including the supplement thereto, are comparatively unimporant.
In May, 1888, the defendants in error brought their action of covenant against the railway company in the superior court of Cook county, Ill., for the alleged breach of the contract and agreement embodied in said article 8 of the lease. The railway company, being a citizen of Wisconsin, removed the cause to the United States circuit court for the northern district of Illinois. The declaration contained two special counts, and the same breaches are assigned in each count. In the first count the contract is set out in haec verba; the second, according to its tenor and effect.
The first breach assigned was that the grain received for storage from the railway company during the year 1886 was less by 1,740,194 bushels than the 5,000,000 bushels covenanted to be received, and therefore the railway company became bound at the close of the year 1886 to pay the plaintiffs, (defendants in error,) on account of the deficiency, the sum of $17,401.94.
The second breach averred that the grain received for storage from the railway company during the year 1887 was less by 2,042,408 bushels than the 5,000,000 bushels covenanted to be received, and therefore the railway company became liable at the close of the year 1887 to pay to the plaintiffs, (defendants in error,) on account of the deficiency, the sum of $20,424.08.
The main breach specially set up and relied on is the third, which comprehends the other two, and is thus stated in the declaration:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Winstar Corp.
...chosen allocation of risk" should always be honored as the most efficient one possible). 57 See, e.g., Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. Hoyt, 149 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1893) ("There can be no question that a party may by an absolute contract bind himself or itself to perform things which s......
-
State v. Broad River Power Co.
... ... 257, 31 S.Ct ... 387, 55 L.Ed. 458; United States v. Delaware, L. & W ... R. Co., 238 U.S. 516, 35 S.Ct. 873, 59 L.Ed. 1438; ... Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis C. & C ... Association, 247 U.S. 490, 38 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed ... We are ... in full accord ... 399, ... 39 S.Ct. 349, 63 L.Ed. 669, 6 A. L. R. 1648, the court in ... distinguishing the case of Chicago, M. & St. P. R. R. Co ... v. Hoyt, 149 U.S. 1, 13 S.Ct. 779, 37 L.Ed. 625, cited ... and relied on by respondents, concludes with this statement ... of the rule: "It certainly was ... ...
-
Scullin Steel Company v. Mississippi Valley Iron Company
... ... construction of the contracts. Consolidated Coal Co. v ... Brick Co., 66 Mo.App. 296; C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v ... Hoyt, 194 U.S. 1, 37 L.Ed. 625; 23 R. C. L. 147; St ... Joseph Hay & Feed Co. v. Brewster, 195 S.W. 72; ... Clough v. Stilwell Meat Co., 112 ... ...
-
Ferguson v. Omaha & S.W.R. Co.
... ... 1 (15 Sup.Ct. 756, 39 L.Ed. 873); Northern Pacific ... Railroad Co. v. Smith, 171 U.S. 260, 271 (18 Sup.Ct ... 794, 43 L.Ed. 157); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy ... Railroad Co. v. Englehart, 57 Neb. 444, 77 N.W. 1092; ... Blakely v. Chicago, Kansas & Nebraska Railway Co., ... 46 ... are familiar with the action of the waters of the Missouri ... river. Dermott v. Jones, 2 Wall. 1, 7, 17 L.Ed. 762; ... Railway Co. v. Hoyt, 149 U.S. 1, 14, 13 Sup.Ct. 779, ... 37 L.Ed. 625; Mitchell v. Weston, 91 Miss. 414, 45 ... So. 571, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 833, 124 Am.St.Rep. 706, ... ...