Lilienthal v. McCormick
Decision Date | 05 May 1902 |
Docket Number | 688. |
Citation | 117 F. 89 |
Parties | LILIENTHAL et al. v. McCORMICK et al. McCORMICK et al. v. LILIENTHAL et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Cox Cotton, Teal & Minor, for appellants Lilienthal Bros.
John H Woodward, for appellees McCormick and others.
Fenton Bronaugh & Muir, for appellee Bank of Woodburn.
The controversy between the parties in this case depends upon the construction to be given to the terms of the following agreement:
'And, in consideration of the foregoing said parties of the second part do hereby agree to pay, to said parties of the first part, the sum of seven cents per pound for each pound of hops delivered and accepted on the conditions stipulated for; that is to say, one dollar paid upon the signing of these presents, the receipt whereof by said parties of the first part is hereby acknowledged; three and one-half cents per pound for each pound of hops hereby bargained to be paid at the time of picking said hops, upon ten days' notice from said parties of the first part; and the balance, if any there may then be due, after delivery of the entire amount bargained and sold to, and acceptance by, said parties of the second part, at the time and place and in the condition as hereinbefore provided. It is further agreed that all advances made as hereinbefore provided shall bear interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum up to the time of acceptance of all of said hops by said parties of the second part, and that the parties of the second part, through their agents, shall have the right to determine at picking time, when said advances are contemplated to be made, whether or not the growing crop at that time is in proper condition; and, if such agents of the parties of the second part shall determine that the growing crop is not in such condition, then said parties of the second part shall be released from any obligations to furnish picking money as called for in this contract. The party of the first part shall not be liable (except to repay advances) for any shortage on delivery due to causes beyond his control. It is further agreed that the said parties of the second part may, at their option, keep the said hops insured against all risks of fire, for their full value,-- that is to say, for an amount not less than the value herein agreed to be paid therefor,-- at the expense of the said party of the first part; said insurance to operate from the time said hops are picked, and to be in the name and for the benefit of said parties of the second part; and, in case of loss of said hops by fire before delivery and acceptance, the party of the first part shall immediately repay, to said parties of the second part, all the moneys heretofore advanced under this contract, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum.
'In witness whereof, the said parties have hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year first above written.
'Charles McCormick. 'Ah (Chinese signature) Tong. 'Wong Him. 'Jim (Chinese signature) Lip. 'Lilienthal Bros. 'H. J. Ottenheimer.'
The court, after disposing of certain exceptions to the answer of defendants, and of divers demurrers and pleas of the respective parties herein, upon the final hearing found and decreed, among other things:
That, under the provisions of the contract, '...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Cigarette Mach. Co. v. Winston Cigarette Mach. Co.
... ... U.S. 119, 25 L.Ed. 370) was that of a contract creditor ... Lilienthal ... v. McCormick, 117 F. 89, 98, 54 C.C.A. 475, and Witz ... v. Mullin, 90 Va. 805, 807, 20 S.E. 783, are cases which ... may be thought to ... ...
-
Barnett v. Mayes
...341; Carey v. Houston & Texas Ry., 161 U. S. 133, 16 S. Ct. 537, 40 L. Ed. 638." To the same effect is the Ninth Circuit. Lilienthal v. McCormick (C. C. A.) 117 F. 89. In that case, the court determined a controversy between co-defendants, residents of the same A case, closer on the facts, ......
-
Cunningham v. Wabash Railroad Co.
...5, 7; 38 Cyc. 142, 143; Leek Milling Co. v. Langford, 81 Miss. 728; Eddy v. Davis, 116 N.Y. 251; Brown v. Binz, 50 S.W. 483; Lilienthal v. McCormick, 117 F. 89. The could not waive the legal tender because such waiver was not for the benefit of the principal and the rule of the defendant pr......
-
Kimel v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
...R. Manefee Lbr. Co. (C. C. A. 9) 292 F. 985; Central Commercial Co. v. Jones-Dusenbury Co. (C. C. A. 7) 251 F. 13, 18; Lilienthal v. McCormick (C. C. A. 9) 117 F. 89, 95; Kunkel v. Brown (C. C. A. 4) 99 F. 593, 594, 596; Home Life Ins. Co. v. Sipp (C. C. A. 3) 11 F.(2d) 474, 476; Schlosser ......