Hale v. Kumler
Decision Date | 08 February 1898 |
Docket Number | 513. |
Citation | 85 F. 161 |
Parties | HALE v. KUMLER. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
This was an action to recover an agreed compensation under a contract for services rendered as a broker in bringing about a consolidation of two rival street-railway companies. It was not claimed that any actual consolidation of the two companies had ever been brought about, but after an agreement had been reached between plaintiff in error as the owner or representative of the stock of the Toledo Consolidated Street-Railway Company, and David and James J. Robison, as the owners or representatives of the stock of the Toledo Electric Street-Railway Company, as to the vital terms of a consolidation, a consummation of the arrangement was defeated by the wrongful refusal of the plaintiff in error to further negotiate or to carry out the consolidation by doing the formal acts which were necessary to the conclusion of the matter. There was a verdict and judgment against the plaintiff in error for $18,200, being the full amount, with interest, which would have been earned if an actual consolidation had taken place through the intervention and services of the defendant in error.
The facts necessary to an understanding of the questions upon which the case must turn are these:
The defendant in error, John F. Kumler, was a lawyer, practicing and residing in Toledo, Ohio. He was, when he undertook to bring about a consolidation of the Toledo Consolidated Street-Railway Company with the Toledo Electric Street-Railway Company, the general attorney of the latter company as well as the confidential counsel for the Robisons who owned or controlled all of its stock. William E. Hale the plaintiff in error, was a retired capitalist living in Chicago, and owned two-fifths of the entire stock of the Toledo Consolidated Street-Railway Company. For some time there had been suggestions from both sides for a consolidation of the two companies, but they had come to nothing. In this situation Kumler addressed the following letter to Hale:
To this Hale replied as follows:
W. E. Hale.
A conference followed, which resulted in the agreement found in Hale's letter to Kumler of August 14, 1894, as follows:
Kumler endeavored to get some modification of this agreement, as shown by his letter of August 22, 1894, which was as follows:
To this Hale replied:
'Chicago, August 23, 1894.
The contract set out in Hale's letter of August 14, 1894, was declared upon as the contract under which Kumler had earned the compensation therein stipulated for.
There was evidence tending to show:
(1) That Kumler's relation to the Toledo Electric Street-Railway Company and to the Robisons was perfectly well known to Hale, and also that the Robisons knew of the relation he assumed to Hale under the contract here involved.
(2) That Hale and the Robisons, through the intervention of Kumler, were brought together on the island of Mackinac for the purpose of conferring upon the terms of a consolidation of the two properties, and that the conferences and negotiations there had resulted in an oral agreement that a consolidation should be brought about upon the basis of the gross earnings of each company in 1893, including the earnings of the electric lighting department of the Toledo Electric Street-Railway Company for the year beginning July 1, 1893, and ending July 1, 1894.
(3) It was further there agreed that the books of each company for the periods mentioned should be examined by an expert bookkeeper, appointed by the opposite party, for the purpose of fixing the precise percentage of the stock of the new or consolidated company to be alloted to each of the old companies.
(4)The matter of the disposition of the large indebtedness of each company was not referred to in the Mackinac conference, nor was any other detail of such consolidation arranged; such as the amount of the capital stock of the new company, its name or officers. All these matters seem...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Odem Realty Co. v. Dyer
... ... transaction, there is no obligation to pay until the ... conditions of payment are fulfilled. Hale v. Kumler (C ... C. A.) 85 F. 161; Holton v. Job Iron & Steel Co. (C ... C. A.) 204 F. 947; American Mercantile Corp. v ... Spielberg (C. C ... ...
-
Odem Realty Company v. Dyer
...contract, contemplates a completed transaction, there is no obligation to pay until the conditions of payment are fulfilled. Hale v. Kumler (C.C.A.), 85 F. 161; Holton v. Job Iron & Steel Co. (C.C.A.), 204 F. 947; American Mercantile Corp. v. Spielberg (C.C.A.), 262 F. 492; Dowell v. Pumphr......
-
Knoechelmann's Administrator v. Knoechelmann
...contract, contemplates a completed transaction, there is no obligation to pay until the conditions of payment are fulfilled. Hale v. Kumler (C.C.A.), 85 F. 161; Holton v. Job Iron & Steel Co. (C.C.A.), 204 F. 947; American Mercantile Corp. v. Speilberg (C.C.A.), 262 F. 492; Dowell v. Pumphr......
-
Ballweber v. Kern
... ... rendered or expense incurred, otherwise the agent is entitled ... to reimbursement, unless the terms of the agreement imply ... otherwise. Hale v. Kumler, 29 C.C.A. 67, 54 U.S ... App. 685, 85 F. 161. Revocation of an agent's authority, ... without liability for damages, is not permitted, ... ...