Crescent Mfg. Co. v. Patterson Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 15 February 1912 |
Docket Number | 1,048. |
Citation | 195 F. 382 |
Parties | CRESCENT MFG. CO. v. PATTERSON MFG. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Henry K. Osborne (Bomar & Osborne, on the brief) for plaintiff in error.
Charles W. Tillett (Tillett & Guthrie, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge, and McDOWELL and CONNOR, District judges.
This was an action at law instituted by the defendant in error (plaintiff below) in the district of South Carolina against the plaintiff in error (defendant below) to recover $2,076.50, amount alleged to be due for cotton yarns sold by the plaintiff to the defendant during the year 1909. The plaintiff was a manufacturer of cotton yarns in Cabarrus county, N.C. The defendant was a manufacturer of hosiery at Spartanburg, S.C. Certain telegrams and letters were introduced for the purpose of showing the contract between the parties, but, owing to the condition of the record, we do not deem it necessary to give an extended statement of facts. At the close of the testimony the learned judge below directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $2,537.08, and it is from this judgment that the defendant below has brought the case to this court upon a writ of error.
It appears that plaintiff made a motion in the court below for a judgment in its favor, and it also appears that the defendant made a similar motion. The following statements taken from the record show what transpired at the close of all of the evidence:
Thus it will be seen that both parties moved for a directed verdict. Under the circumstances here, following Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U.S. 154, 15 Sup.Ct. 566, 39 L.Ed. 654, Sena v. American Co., 220 U.S. 497, 501, 31 Sup.Ct. 488, 55 L.Ed. 559, and Lawton v. Carpenter, 195 F. 362, 115 C.C.A. . . . , decided by this court at this term, we are of opinion that the decision of the lower court should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
By a different process of approaching and dealing with this case, I come to the same conclusion reached by the majority of the court. For the reasons, which I endeavored to set forth in Lawton v. Carpenter, at this term, I think that plaintiff in error is entitled to have its bill of exceptions and assignment of error passed upon. The question is whether the court below correctly interpreted the course pursued by counsel and correctly instructed the jury upon the law. I do not think that the doctrine of Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U.S. 154, 15 Sup.Ct. 566, 39 L.Ed. 654, and Empire Cattle Co. v. Railway, 210 U.S. 1, 28 Sup.Ct. 607, 52 L.Ed. 931, 15 Ann.Cas. 70, deprives the plaintiff of this right, or relieves the court of this duty.
The bill of exceptions presents very clearly the question presented for our decision, disclosing the following undisputed facts: On March 30, 1909, Mr. Lancaster, treasurer of the Crescent Manufacturing Company, of Spartanburg, S.C., called herein defendant, wrote a letter to Mr. Cannon, of Concord, N.C., president of the Patterson Manufacturing Company, called herein plaintiff, in regard to an existing contract for the purchase of 50,000 pounds of cotton yarn. In the last clause of the letter he writes:
'Please advise us if you will accept an additional order of 50,000 pounds, to be shipped as soon as this one is completed, at same price.'
This letter was followed by a correspondence in regard to prices. On April 7, 1909, plaintiff, by wire, proposed prices, to which defendant answered on same day by wire, 'Telegram received, accept,' and on same day wrote and mailed a letter to plaintiff confirming the proposition and acceptance, adding these words, 'Shipments on the contract to begin at expiration of present contract. ' On April 8, 1909, plaintiff, by its president, wrote and mailed a letter to defendant, in the following words, to wit:
This letter was received by Mr. Lancaster, treasurer of defendant. No acknowledgment or answer was made. This letter of April 8, 1909, closed the correspondence. Defendant ordered out installments of different quantities which were duly shipped by plaintiff until August 31, 1909. On September 1, 1909, Mr. Cannon, for plaintiff, wrote defendant:
The total quantity of yarn shipped on this contract was 26,114 pounds, leaving a balance of 23,886. Defendants on September 2, 1909, demanded the shipment of balance yarn on the contract. Plaintiff refused to ship any more yarn. The balance due, on account of the yarn shipped, is $2,067.00 for the recovery of which plaintiff brought this action. Defendant in its answer admitted the balance due, and set up a counterclaim for $836.01 for damages sustained by reason of the refusal of plaintiff to ship the balance of the 50,000 pounds....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Bank of Freeport v. Cape Girardeau & Chester Railroad Co.
......Magone, 157 W. S. 154; United States v. Bishop, 125 F. 181; Crescent Mfg. Co. v. Patterson Mfg. Co., 195 F. 382. . . ......
-
Larabee Flour Mills Corporation v. City Flour & Grain Co.
...52 L. Ed. 931, 15 Ann. Cas. 70; Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U. S. 497, 31 S. Ct. 488, 55 L. Ed. 559; Crescent Mfg. Co. v. Patterson (4 C. C. A.) 195 F. 382, 115 C. C. A. 284; New York v. Third Nat. Bank (2 Cir.) 221 F. 175, 137 C. C. A. 75; Williams v. Vreeland (3 Cir.) 244 F. 346, ......
-
Reynolds v. Zarlengo
...must stand, unless the court's ruling is wrong as a matter of law." To like effect are many cases, such as Crescent Mfg. Co. v. Patterson Co. (C. C. A.) 195 F. 382, Dickinson v. Harris (C. C. A.) 242 F. 926, and many other While it is true, as shown from the record, defendants, in moving fo......