Grimwood v. Munson S.S. Line
| Decision Date | 04 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | 183. |
| Parties | GRIMWOOD et al. v. MUNSON S.S. LINE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Kellogg Emery & Cuthell, of New York City (Frederic R. Kellogg and Earle L. Beatty, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
Kirlin Woolsey, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City (John M. Woolsey, Edwin S. Murphy, and Theodore M. Hequembourg, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
This case has been here on a former occasion, 249 F. 722, 161 C.C.A. 632. The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of selling coal and coke in Mexico imported from the United States. January 31, 1912, they made a contract in writing with the defendant, whereby they agreed to ship all their coal and coke from the United States to Mexico between January 1, 1913, and December 31, 1915, by the defendant's steamers and the defendant agreed to furnish steamers to carry the same. The parties had been doing business together on these terms since 1909.
March 17, 1915, the plaintiffs called for a steamer which the defendant refused to furnish on the ground of the chaotic conditions in Mexico. November 4, 1915, the plaintiffs called for four steamers, which the defendant refused to supply because it 'did not feel called upon to furnish steamers for Mexico at present, owing to the unsettled conditions which prevail there. ' November 18, plaintiffs modified their demand in certain immaterial particulars, and the defendant, November 23, replied that it did not consider that it was under any obligation to furnish the steamers. No new reason being assigned, it stood upon the reason theretofore given.
Thereupon the plaintiffs brought this suit. The defendant in its answer denied that the contract set up in the complaint was a valid and binding contract, and pleaded in defense that, if it were, the plaintiffs had themselves broken the contract by not shipping any coal between June, 1913, and March, 1915, a period of some 20 months.
Judge Mayer, assuming, without deciding, that the contract was valid, held that the plaintiffs had proved no legally recoverable damages, because they had not shown that they had bought any coal in the United States for shipment to Mexico or that they had sold any coal in Mexico to be imported from the United States. This was quite in accord with our former decision that the agreement for transportation was an incident of the plaintiffs' actual business of selling coal in Mexico and that they were not speculating in tonnage as a commodity. If they had no coal to ship, they were not damaged by the defendant's refusal to supply tonnage. On the other hand, if they had coal to ship, they were bound to get other tonnage, and recover of the defendant the difference between the contract price and the price they had to pay. The measure of their damages would not be the loss of profits from their coal business in Mexico, but the extra price which they had to pay for the tonnage not furnished. An admirable discussion of the precise question is to be found in Irvine v. Midland Great Western Railway Co., 6 Law Reports (Ireland) Common Law (1880). See, also, The Oregon v. Pittsburgh & L.A. Iron Co., 55 F. 666, 5 C.C.A. 229; Hughes v. Coal Co., 269 F. 589.
The further question has been argued whether the contract was binding at all. This depends upon whether it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v. Miller
...was said then or since, until this appeal, about lack of mutuality. Munson S. S. Line v. Grimwood, 249 F. 722, 161 C.C.A. 632; Id. (C.C.A. 273 F. 166, relied upon in support of the contention that the contract lacks mutuality. It was held in that case that having, at the time of the breach,......
-
Continental Nat. Bank v. National City Bank
...41 S. Ct. 14, 65 L. Ed. 454; Bank of Taiwan v. Union Nat. Bank of Philadelphia, 1 F.(2d) 65 (C. C. A. 3d, 1924); Grimwood v. Munson S. S. Line, 273 F. 166 (C. C. A. 2d, 1921); Robb v. Crawford, 56 App. D. C. 394, 16 F.(2d) 339 (1926). It has been suggested that there may be a proper distinc......
-
Second Nat Bank of Allegheny v. Lash Corporation
... ... 108, 113; Littlejohn v. Shaw, 159 N.Y. 188, 53 N.E ... 810; Grimwood v. Munson S.S. Line (C.C.A. 2) 273 F ... 166; Galle v. Hamburg Co ... ...
-
Polar Steamship Corp. v. Inland Overseas S. Corp.
...price at the point of origin. Of course, if there were no contract at either end, the damages would be speculative. Cf. Grimwood v. Munson S. S. Line, 2 Cir., 273 F. 166. The profits here involved were recoverable because both Inland and Polar were advised of the terms of the contract betwe......