Clemente Javierre v. Central Altagracia
| Decision Date | 16 May 1910 |
| Docket Number | No. 171,171 |
| Citation | 30 S.Ct. 598,217 U.S. 502,54 L.Ed. 859 |
| Parties | CLEMENTE JAVIERRE, Matias Gil, and Felix Ramos, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name of Javierre & Gil, et al., Appts., v. CENTRAL ALTAGRACIA, Incorporated |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Charles Hartzell and Manuel Rodriguez Serra for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 502-504 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Hugo Kohlman, F. L. Cornwell, and N. B. K. Pettingill for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 504-506 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is an appeal from a decree enjoining the appellants from delivering sugar cane grown on the haciendas Florentina and Estero to the Central Eureka for the term of five crops, beginning with the crop of the year 1906-7, or so long within that term as the appellee is ready to grind and pay for the same; and also from 'selling, donating, renting, or mortgaging said haciendas,' without stipulating for the carrying out of a contract made with the appellee. The contract referred to bound the appellants to have the cane grown on the haciendas ground at the sugar factory of the appellee for the term just stated, at a certain price, with mutual agreements, not necessary to set forth, but, so far as appears, fair, and made upon equal terms. It was subject to a proviso, however, that if, on January 15, 1908, the projected Eureka Central should have been erected, or should be in course of construction, the appellants might cancel the contract, giving notice on October 1, 1907. The notice was given, but the appellee contended that the Eureka Central referred to was abandoned, and that the central relied upon as the ground for the notice was one got up by the appellants, and named Eureka, with a view to getting out of their contract with the appellee.
The findings of fact are not entirely satisfactory upon the point in issue. They set out evidence and avoid a conclusion more definite than that which we shall state. It appears, however, that for some years one Swift had been negotiating for the construction of a Central Eureka, and was continuing his efforts on December 10, 1906, when the contract was made. But in October, 1906, Javierre had telegraphed to him that negotiations with him were at an end, and there was evidence that Javierre and others had met and made an agreement on October 20 to form a corporation to set up the 'said central,' to be called the Central Eureka, 'it being almost sure' that Swift had failed. The parties were to sell their cane to this central for ten years. The court studiously avoids finding that this agreement was made, but does find that if Javierre signed it, he did not consider himself bound by it, and, as has been seen, the contract with the appellee was of later date. The court also finds that it was not generally known that the planters had held the alleged meeting, or were contemplating the erection of the central, and, after stating other details, finds that the appellants have not proved, by a preponderance of evidence, that the contract referred to the Central Eureka started by them, or that the Central Eureka mentioned was other than the one projected by Swift. It ruled that the burden of proof was on the appellants, and thereupon made the decree.
There is some preliminary argument that the finding concerning the continuance of Swift's efforts is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., Civil No. 8017.
...Starratt v. Mullen, 148 Massachusetts, 570 20 N.E. 178, 2 L.R.A. 697." Per Mr. Justice Holmes in Javierre v. Central Altagracia, 1910, 217 U.S. 502, 508, 30 S.Ct. 598, 599, 54 L.Ed. 859.32 The basis for injunctive relief under Section 4 of the Sherman Act must be definitely and satisfactori......
-
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. DeLoache, Civ. A. No. 67-722.
...in New York, 16 Colum.L. Rev. 443; Ames, Mutuality in Specific Peformance, 3 Colum.L.Rev. 1. Cf., Javierre v. Central Altagracia (1910) 217 U.S. 502, 508, 30 S.Ct. 598, 600, 54 L.Ed. 859: "There is too a want of mutuality in the remedy, whatever that objection may amount to * * *." (Italics......
-
Evankavitch v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC
...out of the body of a statute or contract those who set up such exception must prove it’ ”) (quoting Javierre v. Cent. Altagracia, 217 U.S. 502, 508, 30 S.Ct. 598, 54 L.Ed. 859 (1910) ); United States v. Taylor, 686 F.3d 182, 190 & n. 5 (3d Cir.2012) (compiling “numerous Supreme Court decisi......
-
Nayab v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.
...out of the body of a statute or contract those who set up such exception must prove it.’ " (quoting Javierre v. Cent. Altagracia , 217 U.S. 502, 508, 30 S.Ct. 598, 54 L.Ed. 859 (1910) (citing Schlemmer , 205 U.S. at 10, 27 S.Ct. 407 ))). This "longstanding convention is part of the backdrop......
-
Employer Responses
...an exception out of the body of a statute or contract those who set up such exception must prove it. Javierre v. Central Altagracia , 217 U.S. 502, 508 (1910).” Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory , 554 U.S. 84, 128 S. Ct. 2395 (2008). D.C. Circuit Plaintiffs filed suit arising out of......
-
Fair Use: an Affirmative Defense?
...24. 78. See supra note 25. 79. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1948); see also Javierre v. Cent. Altagracia, 217 U.S. 502, 508 (1910) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.). 80. 17 U.S.C. § 109(a). Similarly, subsection (c) of Section 109 provides that the owner of ......