Denison v. Shawmut Min. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1908 |
| Docket Number | 62. |
| Citation | 159 F. 102 |
| Parties | DENISON v. SHAWMUT MINING CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Plaintiff Charles L. Denison, was a wholesale coal dealer in Buffalo. On March 13, 1902, one B. E. Cartwright, having charge of the coal sales of defendant, a coal mining company, contracted on defendant's behalf for the sale and delivery to plaintiff at the mine from April 1, 1902, until April 1, 1903, of the entire output of the Brock Mine operated by defendant in Pennsylvania. Defendant, acting under such contract thereafter delivered the coal as ordered, and received payments therefor. This contract was made by Cartwright with the knowledge and authority of defendant's president, one Byrne. On July 1, 1902, the relations between Byrne and Cartwright having become hostile, the latter left defendant's service, and one D. F. Maroney took his place. In the latter part of July, Byrne notified plaintiff that Cartwright had deceived him by representing that the Erie Railroad Company had withdrawn a rebate, whereas plaintiff was getting the benefit of such rebate. Byrne asserted that plaintiff was a party to the deception, and demanded that the contract of March 13th be canceled. Plaintiff denied participation in any deception, but said he was willing to cancel the contract in case a satisfactory substituted contract could be agreed on. It was thereupon arranged that Maroney, who was defendant's vice president, should take up the matter with plaintiff and adjust it, and, as a result, Denison and Maroney made and agreed on the terms of a substituted contract to be executed in consideration of the cancellation of the contract of March 13th, the relinquishment by Denison of any rights with respect to a certain switch, and a compromise payment by Denison of $600. Defendant's contract, dated August 14, 1902, before being delivered, was submitted by Maroney to defendant's general sales agent and to defendant's attorney, both of whom approved it. By its terms, the contract of March 13, 1902, was canceled, and it provided that defendant should sell and deliver the output of the Brock Mine from August 1, 1902, until April 1, 1903 and that plaintiff should pay therefor at the rate of $1 per ton for the first 50,000 tons and $1.15 per ton for the balance. The action was brought for breach of this contract, defendant claiming that it was without consideration and void for indefiniteness and want of mutuality. A judgment was rendered for plaintiff for much less than the relief demanded, from which both parties brought error. Affirmed.
Rogers Locke & Milburn (Charles G. Miller and Harrington...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Maryland Casualty Co.
...C. A.) 7 F.(2d) 259, which followed Mattox v. U. S., supra. New York & T. S. S. Co. v. Anderson (C. C. A.) 50 F. 462; Denison v. Shawmut Mining Co. (C. C. A.) 159 F. 102; Reader v. Haggin (C. C. A.) 160 F. 909; Worden v. Kenny (C. C. A.) 239 F. 131; Ford Motor Co. v. Hotel Woodward Co. (C. ......
-
Bidwell v. George B. Douglas Trading Co.
... ... this court. Reader v. Haggin, 160 F. 909, 88 C.C.A ... 91; Denison v. Shawmut Mining Co., 159 F. 102, 86 ... C.C.A. 292 ... The ... only question, ... ...
-
Reader v. Haggin
...presents no question which this court can consider. Our latest decision reaffirming this rule was made January 7, 1908. Denison v. Shawmut Mining Co., 159 F. 102. motion that an exception be inserted in a bill of exceptions is clearly addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and his ......