Filley v. Pope
| Decision Date | 26 October 1885 |
| Citation | 115 U.S. 213,6 S.Ct. 19,29 L.Ed. 372 |
| Parties | FILLEY v. POPE and another. 1 Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This action was brought by Thomas J. Pope and James E. Pope, citizens of New York, and partners under the name of Thomas J. Pope & Bro., against Oliver B. Filley, a citizen of Missouri. The petition alleged that on February 20, 1880, the defendant bargained for and bought of the plaintiffs, and they sold to him, 500 tons of No. 1 Shotts (Scotch) pig-iron, at the price of $26 per ton, to be paid in cash by the defendant upon the delivery to him of the iron in bond at New Orleans; the iron to be shipped from Glasgow, Scotland, as soon as possible, and the delivery and sale to be subject to ocean risks; and the defendant agreed to accept the iron as aforesaid, and to pay the plaintiffs therefor the sum of $13,000; and that the particulars of the sale and agreement were set forth in a note and memorandum thereof, signed by the defendant, as follows:
'ST. LOUIS, February 20, 1880.
'Thomas J. Pope & Bro., New York: Have sold for your account to Mr. O. B. Filley, St. Louis, 500 tons No. 1 Shotts (Scotch) pig-iron, at $26 per ton cash, in bond at New Orleans. Shipment from Glasgow as soon as possible. Delivery and sale subject to ocean risks.
'Very truly,
MILLARD & COMBS.'
Across the face of this was written: 'Accepted, O. B. FILLEY.'
The petition further alleged that afterwards, and as soon as possible, the plaintiffs caused the iron to be shipped from Glasgow to New Orleans; that upon its arrival at New Orleans, on May 26, 1880, they offered to deliver it to the defendant in bond at that port, and requested him to receive and pay for it, but he refused to do so, and the plaintiffs were forced to sell it at a loss. The defendant in his answer admitted the contract and his refusal to accept the iron; denied the other allegations of the petition; and alleged, as the ground of his refusal, and as a defense to the action, that the plaintiffs failed to ship the iron from Glasgow as soon as possible after the date of the contract. The plaintiffs filed a replication, denying all new matter in the answer.
The testimony of the witnesses called by the plaintiffs at the trial tended to prove the following facts: Immediately after making this contract the plaintiffs, by telegraph, bought the iron of John Anderson, of Glasgow, and requested him to ship it to New Orleans. The iron was then at the works of the Shotts Iron Company, in Scotland, equidistant and equally accessible by railway from the ports of Glasgow on the west coast, and of Leith on the east coast; and such iron was sometimes shipped from Glasgow, and sometimes from Leith. Anderson at once made diligent inquiry and efforts to secure transportation from Glasgow, and from Leith, and from other Scotch ports, to New Orleans, but, owing to the great scarcity of ships at that time, could only secure one vessel, the bark Alpha, which was then discharging her cargo at Leith. This vessel he chartered on February 23, 1880, three days after the contract in question was made at St. Louis. No vessel or transportation could be obtained from Glasgow to New Orleans then, or for weeks afterwards. The iron was sent down from the works of the Shotts Iron Company to Leith as fast as the bark could receive it. With all speed she discharged her cargo, took in the iron, and sailed from Leith for New Orleans, where she arrived about May 26th. The distance by sea was greater from Leith to New Orleans than from Glasgow to New Orleans. If the Alpha had come round to Glasgow and shipped the iron there, it would have taken from 6 to 26 days, according to the winds, and she would have had to take in ballast at Leith and discharge it at Glasgow, involving considerable delay and expense.
The court instructed the jury that the provision of the contract that the iron was to be shipped from Glasgow was not a material provision of the contract, so far as this controversy was concerned; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scannell v. American Soda Fountain Company
...Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 90; Brown v. Massey, 138 Mo. 532; Herryford v. Turner, 67 Mo. 298; Hill v. Rich Hill & Co., 119 Mo. 27; Filley v. Pope, 115 U.S. 213; v. Knapp, 59 N.Y. 462; McFerran v. Taylor, 3 Cranch, 270; Wetmore v. Bruce, 118 N.Y. 319; McPherson v. Schade, 149 N.Y. 16; Jeffri......
-
Laswell v. National Handle Company
... ... 784.] Or fails to keep a condition ... precedent. [ Monks v. Miller, 13 Mo.App. 363; ... Craycroft v. Walker, 26 Mo.App. 469; Filley v ... Pope, 115 U.S. 213, 29 L.Ed. 372, 6 S.Ct. 19.] Or ... expressly renounces the contract. [Claes, etc., Co. v ... McCord, 65 Mo.App. 507.] ... ...
-
American Bonding Co. v. Regents of University
... ... for a subsequent failure on its part to perform. ( Robson ... v. Bohn, 27 Minn. 333, 7 N.W. 357; Pope v ... Porter, 102 N.Y. 366, 7 N.E. 305; Rice v. Fidelity ... etc. Co., 103 F. 427; Creswell R. & C. Co. v ... Martindale, 63 F. 84; Filley ... ...
-
Laswell v. National Handle Co.
...Or fails to keep a condition precedent. Monks v. Miller, 13 Mo. App. 363; Craycroft v. Walker, 26 Mo. App. 469; Filley v. Pope, 115 U. S. 213, 6 Sup. Ct. 18, 29 L. Ed. 372. Or expressly renounces the contract. Claes, etc., Co. v. McCord, 65 Mo. App. 507. Or abandons it. Henry v. Bassett, 75......
-
Forfeiture by Cancellation or Termination - Charles Tiefer
...shipper did not precisely fulfill that mode, the buyer had the power to cancel. Norrington v. Wright, 115 U.S. 188 (1885); Filley v. Pope, 115 U.S. 213 (1885). 36. Although cancellation can be a remedy for breach, it can also occur without being a remedy for breach. For nonpromissory condit......
-
Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-614 Substituted Performance
...by the terms of their contract, and that substitution of one means of transportation for another was not permitted. In Filley v. Pope, 6 S.Ct. 19, 115 U.S. 213, 29 L.Ed. 372 (Mo.1885), the U. S. Supreme Court held that shipment from port "A", instead of port "B" as provided by the contract,......