Haff v. Pilling

• Decision Date: 20 January 1905
• Docket Number: 12.
• Parties: HAFF v. PILLING et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

134 F. 294

HAFF v. PILLING et al.

No. 12.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

January 20, 1905

H. B Gill and Read & Pettit, for plaintiff.

Henry P. Brown and John G. Johnson, for defendants.

HOLLAND District Judge.

This is a motion for a new trial, for the reasons (1) the verdict was against the evidence; and (2) against the weight of the evidence.

Mr Haff brought suit for the recovery of damages for the breach of contract into which he had entered with defendants for the delivery of coal. The dispute arose out of the following facts:

On August 20, 1902, Haff made a contract with the defendants for the delivery of 10,500 gross tons of 'Sonman Shaft Bituminous Steam Coal,' f.o.b. cars at piers Pennsylvania Railroad Company, South Amboy, N.J., in about equal monthly quantities between September 1, 1902, and April 1, 1903 which would be 1,500 tons per month for seven months, at $2.95 per ton. The contract contained the usual strike clause, and further it was stipulated as follows:

'It is understood and agreed that if there should be a shortage of cars, shipments will be divided from time to time in fair proportion on all orders. Each month's delivery to be treated and considered as a separate and independent contract.'

The defendants, during the above-mentioned seven months, delivered, in accordance with their contract, to the plaintiff, at South Amboy, N.J., 2,232 tons of Sonman Shaft and 2,117 tons of other kinds of coal, making a total of 4,347 tons; the different between this and the amount agreed to be delivered under the contract, to wit, 10,500 tons, being 6,153 tons. This amount the plaintiff was compelled to purchase in the open market during that time to fill contracts made by him, for which he was compelled to pay a much higher price.

If the plaintiff be entitled to recover for the failure of the defendants to comply with their contract to deliver this coal, the measure of his damage is the difference between the price he was to pay the defendants, and the price for which he was compelled to purchase in the open market at the last day of each month, for the amount of coal which the defendants failed to deliver according to contract during the preceding month, as the contract provides that each month's delivery is to be treated and considered as an independent contract. So that at the end of the month, if there was a failure on the part of the defendants to deliver the entire 1,500 tons, and the plaintiff was compelled to purchase any part thereof in the market at a higher price, he would be entitled to recover, if at all, for the difference. From the evidence, we learn that the plaintiff was required to purchase coal in the open market at an advance price for the purpose of supplying the 6,153 tons.

According to the plaintiff's evidence, the amount the defendants were short on delivery, and the months, the tons short, excess of market price, and total amount of excess paid, are as follows:

Month.	Tons Short.	Excess of Market Price.	Damages
September ..........	586	$5 55	$ 3,252 80
October ............	758	2 05	1,553 90
November ...........	946	2 05	1,939 30
December ...........	835	3 05	2,546 75
January ..........	1,166	4 05	4,722 30
February .........	1,106	55	608 30
March ..............	756	15	113 40
	-----------		----------
	6,153		$14,736 75

He, however, only claims damage in his statement to the amount of $12,943.66.

The defendants, in their affidavit of defense, alleged that the reason for their failure to deliver the total amount of the coal contracted for was because of 'an interruption of transportation, which resulted from a shortage of cars, and other causes entirely beyond their control. ' They further claim a delivery to the plaintiff, under the contract, of 4,347 tons, for which the plaintiff owed them $12,718.80, and advance charges on the coal for plaintiff's account $376.41, making a total of $13,095.21, and, having received from the plaintiff on account the sum of $12,503.38, claimed a balance due of $591.83.

The plaintiff had entered into contracts for the delivery of coal to his customers during the seven months involved in the contract in suit, and to one customer alone (the sugar refining company) he had obligated himself to deliver an amount of coal during the period in excess of that which he had contracted to purchase from the defendant, and this contract he protected against strike contingencies.

The defendants, prior to August 20, 1902 (the date upon which they made the contract with the plaintiff for Sonman Shaft coal), entered into a contract with the Keystone Coal & Coke Company, on August 19, 1902, for 45,000 tons of Sonman Shaft coal, 6,000 tons of which were to be delivered monthly from September 1, 1902, to April 1, 1903, to the defendants; and on August 16, 1902, three days before, the Keystone Coal &amp Coke Company contracted for 45,000 tons of Sonman Shaft coal, to be shipped and delivered at the rate of 6,000 tons per month up to April 1, 1903; so...