First Nat. Bank v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co., 192.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
Citation273 F. 105
Docket Number192.
PartiesFIRST NAT. BANK OF LITCHFIELD v. PIPE & CONTRACTORS' SUPPLY CO.
Decision Date20 April 1921

273 F. 105

FIRST NAT. BANK OF LITCHFIELD
v.

PIPE & CONTRACTORS' SUPPLY CO.

No. 192.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 20, 1921


[273 F. 106]

William M. Foord, of Torrington, Conn., and Charles Welles Gross, of Hartford, Conn., for plaintiff in error.

Slade, Slade & Slade, of New Haven, Conn. (Benjamin Slade, of New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for defendant in error.

The defendant below (hereinafter called the Bank) in July, 1918, owned and had in the vicinity of Litchfield, Conn., certain secondhand rails, pipe, engines, drills, etc., being machinery and appliances theretofore used in the construction or extension of a certain reservoir. The property was bulky and heavy. On July 25th the Bank agreed in writing with plaintiff below (hereinafter called Pipe Company) to sell this property to Pipe Company. The contract writing recites that Pipe Company, having paid $500 on account, agreed 'to pay the further sum of $1,475 for the (property aforesaid) when it is loaded on cars at the Litchfield station. This $1,975 includes the purchase price and moving (the property) to station.'

On August 15th the Bank wrote to Pipe Company that it expected the cars to be ready and the material on the ground ready to load on August 19th. The letter concluded with the following: 'Kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter. I understood that you wanted to have some one here when the stuff was ready to load. ' The word 'here' meant Litchfield, Conn. To this letter Pipe Company returned no answer.

On August 22d the Bank wrote again, referring to the previous letter of August 15th, and saying: 'Much of the material is already loaded, and we are assured the balance will all be on cars to-morrow afternoon, except crusher and boiler, which are on the ground, and we feel sure it will be loaded on Saturday. Kindly give this your prompt attention, and favor us with your check for $1,475 as agreed. ' The 'Saturday' referred to was August 24th, and on that day all the property was loaded on cars at Litchfield station and ready to move.

On August 23d Pipe Company called up the Bank by telephone and requested that the goods be shipped with a sight draft attached to the bill of lading, and this the Bank refused. Thereupon Pipe Company's officer said over the telephone that he would come up in a few days, which he did not do. On August 31st the Bank wrote to Pipe Company stating that, 'not having heard from you (and) in order to protect ourselves,' it had sold the property to somebody else, and with the letter returned the partial payment of $500, less demurrage charges on the loaded cars, of $86.

To this the Pipe Company replied on September 5th, professing surprise at the contents of the letter of August 31st, averring that it had always been 'ready, able, and willing' to carry out the bargain, and substantially threatening suit. Subsequently this action was brought, wherein a breach of contract is alleged, in that the Bank 'failed, neglected, and refused to deliver to (Pipe...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • In re B. & R. Glove Corporation, 51.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • January 18, 1922
    ...it the meaning of the phrase 'reasonable time,' and we held in First National Bank of Litchfield v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co. (C.C.A.) 273 F. 105, 108, that 'where the facts are clearly established, [279 F. 380] or are undisputed, or admitted, the reasonable time is a question of law. ......
  • Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin, No. 155
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1931
    ...Hazzard Co. v. Railroad Co., 121 Me. 199, 202-203, 116 A. 258. Compare First Nat. Bank v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co. (C.C.A.) 273 F. 105, 107, 108. A demurrer to the evidence must be tested by the same rules that apply in respect of a motion to direct a verdict. Schuchardt v. Allen, 1 W......
  • Atl. City Tire & Rubber Corp. v. Southwark Foundry & Mach. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 9, 1927
    ...declare. American Tube & Stamping Co. v. Erie Iron & Steel Co., 281 Pa. 10, 125 A. 304; First National Bank v. Pipe Supply Co. (C. C. A.) 273 F. 105. The rubber company was under the duty to make payment for the machines at the time fixed for delivery, and its failure to do so constituted a......
  • Heiskell v. H. C. Enterprise, Inc., No. 5--4478
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 13, 1968
    ...of law when the facts are clearly established, undisputed or admitted. First National Bank of Litchfield v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co., 273 F. 105 (CCA2d 1921); Colfax County v. Butler County, 83 Neb. 803, 120 N.W. 444 (1909); Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. Strand Enterprises, 7 Ohio App., 32......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • In re B. & R. Glove Corporation, 51.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • January 18, 1922
    ...it the meaning of the phrase 'reasonable time,' and we held in First National Bank of Litchfield v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co. (C.C.A.) 273 F. 105, 108, that 'where the facts are clearly established, [279 F. 380] or are undisputed, or admitted, the reasonable time is a question of law. ......
  • Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin, No. 155
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1931
    ...Hazzard Co. v. Railroad Co., 121 Me. 199, 202-203, 116 A. 258. Compare First Nat. Bank v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co. (C.C.A.) 273 F. 105, 107, 108. A demurrer to the evidence must be tested by the same rules that apply in respect of a motion to direct a verdict. Schuchardt v. Allen, 1 W......
  • Atl. City Tire & Rubber Corp. v. Southwark Foundry & Mach. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 9, 1927
    ...declare. American Tube & Stamping Co. v. Erie Iron & Steel Co., 281 Pa. 10, 125 A. 304; First National Bank v. Pipe Supply Co. (C. C. A.) 273 F. 105. The rubber company was under the duty to make payment for the machines at the time fixed for delivery, and its failure to do so constituted a......
  • Heiskell v. H. C. Enterprise, Inc., No. 5--4478
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 13, 1968
    ...of law when the facts are clearly established, undisputed or admitted. First National Bank of Litchfield v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co., 273 F. 105 (CCA2d 1921); Colfax County v. Butler County, 83 Neb. 803, 120 N.W. 444 (1909); Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. Strand Enterprises, 7 Ohio App., 32......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT