Hammond v. Crawford
Decision Date | 05 March 1895 |
Citation | 66 F. 425 |
Parties | HAMMOND v. CRAWFORD. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Charles H. Brush, for plaintiff in error.
Hugh L Cole, for defendant in error.
Before BROWN, Circuit Justice, and LACOMBE and SHIPMAN, Circuit judges.
This is an action upon a written contract in the words and figures following:
The plaintiff contended that he performed the services required of him, and, alleging that the stock of the said company was worth $25 per share (the par value being $5), demanded judgment for $302,500. He sought to prove performance by showing that through his procurement Sortwell entered into an agreement with defendant containing the following provisions viz.: That Crawford was to cause to be organized a corporation under the laws of New Jersey, and to convey to such corporation, by a good and sufficient warranty deed, the mining property known as the 'Confidence Group of Mines,' situated in the county of Socorro, N.M., the said deed and other evidences of title to the said property to be approved by counsel learned in the law, nominated by Sortwell; that the capital should be $500,000 in 100,000 shares at $5 a share, and that Crawford should deliver to Sortwell 45,000 full-paid shares; that Sortwell, upon delivery of said deed and of the certificate of incorporation, should pay to Crawford personally $125,000 and to George Crawford, as treasurer of the company, $100,000; that Crawford, on receipt of the $125,000, should erect a stamping mill of a designated capacity, and turn the same over to the company; that the incorporation of the said company and the payment of the purchase money for the 45,000 shares should be consummated on or before October 1, 1891; and that 'the charter of the aforesaid corporation and the by-laws of the same (shall) be mutually satisfactory to the parties to this contract. ' The date of consummation of this Crawford-Sortwell agreement was extended by mutual consent until January 4, 1892. On that day Crawford offered a deed from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. Van Vranken
... ... such price, as he may obtain for the land. Wilson v ... Mason, 158 Ill. 304, 42 N.E. 134; Hammond v ... Crawford, 14 C. C. A. 109, 35 U. S. App. 1, 66 F. 425; ... Keys v. Johnson, 68 Pa. 42; Olsen v. Jodon, ... 38 Minn. 468, 38 N.W. 485; ... ...
-
Arkansas Lumber & Contractors' Supply Company v. Benson
...105 Cal. 514; 45 Am. St. 87; 13 La.Ann. 51; 50 N.Y.S. 128; 27 A.D. 117; 116 Ill.App. 397; 214 Ill. 259; 64 Ill.App. 208; 14 C. C. A. 109; 66 F. 425. An acceptance in order to bind party offering must be without condition and in due time. 137 F. 586; 69 C. C. A. 674; 22 F. 596; 41 So. 675; 6......
-
Mayhew v. Brislin
... ... This was not ... an unreasonable construction of the language used by the ... parties as applied to the facts in the case. Hammond v ... Crawford, 66 F. 425, 14 C.C.A. 109 ... No ... authority is cited by appellant holding the evidence ... inadmissible of which ... ...
-
Snyder v. Fidler
... ... Walker, 41 Mo.App. 118; Condict v. Cowdrey, 139 ... N.Y. 273 (34 N.E. 781); Sullivan v. Milliken, 113 F ... 93 (51 C.C.A. 79); Hammond v. Crawford, 66 F. 425 ... (14 C.C.A. 109); Beale v. Bard, 84 L.T.R. 313; ... Cook v. Forst, 116 Ala. 395 (22 So. 540); ... Woolley v ... ...