Hargis Canneries v. United States, Civ. A. No. 435.
Decision Date | 01 February 1945 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 435. |
Citation | 60 F. Supp. 729 |
Parties | HARGIS CANNERIES, Inc., v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
G. T. Sullins, of Fayetteville, Ark., for plaintiff.
Clinton R. Barry, U. S. Atty., and Thomas C. Pitts, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Fort Smith, Ark., for defendant.
The complaint was filed March 31, 1944, and after the disposal of some preliminary motions the defendant filed its answer on September 14, 1944, and on September 20, 1944, the plaintiff filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings. Rule 12(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.
The motion for judgment on the pleadings admits all facts well pleaded, but does not admit conclusions of law; facts which the court will take judicial notice are not true; legally impossible facts; facts which would be inadmissible in evidence in the event of a trial nor facts which might appear by a record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded. Cohen v. United States, 8 Cir., 129 F.2d 733; Rosenhan v. United States, 10 Cir., 131 F.2d 932.
The facts disclosed by the pleadings and exhibits thereto are as follows:
Plaintiff is a corporation, organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas with its principal place of business at Fayetteville in that State.
On or about the first day of June, 1942, plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant through the California Quartermaster Depot, E. J. Brugger, Major, Q. M.C., purchasing and contracting officer, for the sale of 10,000 dozen No. 10 cans of blackberries at the price of $6 per dozen. The contract provided that final delivery should be made not later than June 30, 1943. Under the contract plaintiff delivered to the defendant 3600 dozen cans at $6 per dozen and 1590 dozen cans at $5.69 per dozen.
On September 13, 1942, the contracting officer wrote plaintiff terminating plaintiff's right to make further deliveries and proceeded to purchase enough blackberries from other packers to complete the contract and paid other packers a price in excess of the contract price to be paid the plaintiff in the sum of $8,730.81.
The defendant has withheld the sum of $8,730.81 from plaintiff and has refused to pay the plaintiff said sum, but is withholding said money as damages by reason of condition 2 of the contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant.
Plaintiff alleges that the blackberries were not furnished according to contract by reason of unforeseeable circumstances and causes beyond its control and without fault or negligence on its part; that the weather conditions were such as to make it impossible to pack the amount of blackberries provided for in the contract within the time provided therein or during the year 1942, and that under condition 2 of said contract it is relieved from complying with the contract and is not liable to the defendant for any excess cost on account of its failure to make deliveries because of the circumstances and conditions which prevented it from fulfilling the contract.
Condition 2 of the contract reads as follows:
After the defendant had terminated the contract, the plaintiff made application to the California Quartermaster Depot for release of liability and for payment to it of the sum of $8,730.81, purchase price of the blackberries delivered by plaintiff and accepted by defendant under the contract. The matter was submitted to the contracting officer who made the following findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carolina Winds Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Joe Harden Builder, Inc.
...conclusions of law. Bryan v. Stillwater Bd. of Realtors, 578 F.2d 1319 (10th Cir.1977) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); Hargis Canneries v. United States, 60 F.Supp. 729 (W.D.Ark.1945) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c)); cf. Carrington v. City of Spartanburg, supra. The court must take all well pleaded factual a......
-
Haynesworth v. Miller
...Cir.1957). On Rule 12(c) motions, see, e.g., Kohen v. H.S. Crocker Co., 260 F.2d 790, 792 (5th Cir.1958); Hargis Canneries, Inc. v. United States, 60 F.Supp. 729 (D.Ark.1945). Conversely, a trial court should not grant either kind of motion simply because it is dubious of the plaintiff's ab......
-
Ragsdale v. Kennedy
...H. S. Crocker Company, 260 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1958); Duhame v. United States, 119 F.Supp. 192 (Ct.Cl.1954); Hargis Canneries, Inc. v. United States, 60 F.Supp. 729 (W.D.Ark.1945). We consider the case before us in light of these The 'third defense,' viewed in the light most favorable to def......
-
National Union Fire Ins. v. Continental Illinois Corp., 85 C 7080
...motion on several of Insurers' claims. 5 As with almost every general rule, there are of course caveats. Hargis Canneries, Inc. v. United States, 60 F.Supp. 729, 729 (W.D.Ark.1945) (citations omitted) The motion for judgment on the pleadings admits all facts well pleaded, but does not admit......