Kelly v. Crawford
Decision Date | 01 December 1866 |
Citation | 18 L.Ed. 562,72 U.S. 785,5 Wall. 785 |
Parties | KELLY v. CRAWFORD |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On error to the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the case was thus:
Crawford & Co., in 1860, were coal dealers in Cleveland, and at the same time Kelly & Maher were coal dealers in Chicago. On the 4th August Kelly made a contract with Crawford & Co., the purport of which was, that Crawford & Co. were to supply Kelly & Co. with coal; that the coal was to be furnished at Cleveland; that Kelly & Co. were to advance the freight and insurance; that upon its arrival here they were to dock and sell it, to guarantee the payment of all sales. The contract prescribed the manner in which the proceeds of the sales were to be divided between the parties, and provided that the coal was to remain the property of Crawford & Co.
On the 13th of September, 1861, there being a large sum of money due Crawford & Co. for coal furnished under the contract, an agreement was made, in substance thus:
No 'exhibit' of any kind had been annexed to this contract at the date of its execution, nor was ever afterward annexed.
Quigg, in September, 1861, along with Mahel, Crawford & Co. supervising what he did, proceeded to determine from the books of Kelly & Co. the amount due Crawford & Co. In doing this he corrected errors and oversights, and made some new entries, and on the 16th of June, 1862, he wrote up a balance of the accounts as they stood on the books at that time; including in it all the accounts that had been entered upon the books by him subsequent to the agreement. Acting thus, he reported, in June, 1862, the sum due to be $5474.
Kelly & Co. having failed to pay the amount thus found, Crawford & Co. brought assumpsit in the court below against them.
The declaration consisted of one special count on the agreement, and the award of Mr. Quigg, thereunder. It set forth that the accounts had been put into collection, and that there was a deficit. The common counts were added.
To this declaration Maher pleaded:
1st. General issue.
2d. That he did not execute the agreement set out in first count of the declaration.
3d. That the agreement so set out was executed by Kelly, in the name of Kelly & Co., without his knowledge or consent, and that long before the date thereof, the firm of Kelly & Co., of which he had been a member, was dissolved.
On the trial, the contract between the parties of September 13th, 1861, was admitted by the court in evidence, 'subject to the proof to be given thereafter,' without the exhibit to which it refers, against two objections of the defendants—1st, that it was incomplete without the exhibit; 2d, that it was invalid, because executed by one of the firm of Kelly & Co., after its dissolution.
Quigg was examined as a witness in the case, and exhibited the books, and testified that the entries made by him, and the balance the books showed, were accurate.
Mr. D. C. Nichols, for Kelly & Co., plaintiffs in error:
1. The contract without the schedule was incomplete—a contract with its most important part omitted—and did not tend to show the case between the parties. Their rights, under the contract, depended upon the accounts assigned. The accounts were to be put into speedy collection. The first count of the plaintiffs' declaration alleges that this was done. If more was collected than Quigg should award, the plaintiffs were to pay the balance to the defendants below; if less, the defendants below were to make up the deficiency. The contract without the schedule had no certain meaning.1 The absence of the schedule made a patent ambiguity which cannot be supplied by parol evidence.2
If this contract could have been rendered competent by extrinsic evidence, that evidence should have been first introduced, before the contract was received in evidence.3
2. By the contract of September 13th, 1861, Quigg was to determine the balance due the plaintiffs from the defendants as shown by the books at the time they were submitted to him. Instead of so finding the balance he changed the books; introduced new and original matter in them, and in making up the balance-sheet included this matter. In doing this he exceeded the submission.
Now, an award not in pursuance of the submission, or based upon matters not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Omaha Water Co. v. City of Omaha
... ... distinction, it has been generally recognized both in England ... and in this country. Kelly v. Crawford, 5 Wall. 785, ... 18 L.Ed. 562; Collins v. Collins, 26 ... [162 F. 234] ... Beav. 306, 28 L. J. Ch. 184; Bos v. Helsham, 4 H. & ... ...
-
Toledo S. S. Co. v. Zenith Transp. Co.
... ... But the ... character of the submission as to damages seems to us fixed ... by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kelly v ... Crawford, 5 Wall. 785, 18 L.Ed. 562. There one party had ... been and was the agent of the other and had become indebted ... to the other ... ...
-
Noble v. Grandin
...following cases sustain the proposition that such a submission is not an arbitration: Collins v. Collins, 26 Beav. 308; Kelly v. Crawford, 5 Wall. 785, 18 L.Ed. 562; Willingham v. Veal, 74 Ga. 755; Norton Gale, 95 Ill. 533; Stose v. Heissler, 120 Ill. 433, 11 N.E. 161; Pearson v. Sanderson,......
-
American Steel Co. v. German-American Fire Ins Co.
... ... Pennsylvania say: ... 'Nor ... is such an appraisement subject to strict rules governing ... arbitrations and awards. Kelly v. Crawford, 5 ... Wall. 785, 18 L.Ed. 562. It would not be necessary ... that the appraisers should decide upon evidence heard in ... the ... ...