Mahon v. Somers
| Citation | 112 F. 174 |
| Parties | MAHON v. SOMERS et al. |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1901 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Foran McTighe & Baker, for plaintiff.
Squire Sanders & Dempsey, for Pittsburgh Coal Co.
In this suit the cause of action disclosed by the petition is a contract entered into between the plaintiff and J. H. Somers and C. W. Somers, trading and doing business as the J. H Somers Fuel Company, a partnership, for the delivery by the latter of a certain amount of coal at a stipulated price that after such contract had been to a certain extent performed, the Pittsburgh Coal Company, a corporation and a citizen of the state of Pennsylvania, assumed the further performance of the contract, by and with the assent of the plaintiff. The petition states that the plaintiff 'was informed that from and after this 1st day of November, 1899, the contract entered into by and between him and J. H. Somers Fuel Company would be assumed, carried out, and executed by the Pittsburgh Coal Company, which had absorbed J. H. Somers Fuel Company, succeeded to all its rights and properties, and assumed all of its contracts and obligations; and the plaintiff says that he assented to the assumption of his contract by the Pittsburgh Coal Company,' and that thereafter the Pittsburgh Coal Company shipped a certain amount of coal, in accordance with the terms of said contract; that on November 11, 1899, the Pittsburgh Coal Company repudiated the said contract, and refused to perform it, and denied that they were bound thereby; and that although the plaintiff has frequently requested the defendants, the Pittsburgh Coal Company and J. H. Somers Fuel Company, to carry out the contract, they have refused; and plaintiff says that he is informed and believes that the J. H. Somers Fuel Company informed the Pittsburgh Coal Company assumed and accepted the contract of the J. H. Somers Fuel Company as its own contract with this plaintiff, and that, after partly performing, it has refused further to perform. It is further stated in the petition that, by reason of this refusal to furnish him coal, he was obliged to buy coal in the market at a higher price then that named in the contract, to fulfill obligations which he had entered into upon the faith that such original contract would be kept and performed.
These allegations disclose that a contract existed between the plaintiff and the Pittsburgh Coal Company by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co.
...Bradley (C. C.) 53 F. 305; Hukill v. Maysville, etc., Co. (C. C.) 72 F. 745; Prince v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (C. C.) 98 F. 1; Mahon v. Somers (C. C.) 112 F. 174; Loop v. Winter's Estate (C. C.) 115 F. 362; Sidway v. Missouri Land, etc., Co. (C. C.) 116 F. 381; Kelly v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co. ......
-
Kelleam v. Maryland Casualty Co. of Baltimore, 2059.
...the burden of showing that his domicile and citizenship is other than the place of his residence to him who alleges it. Mahon v. Somers et al., C.C.Ohio, 112 F. 174; Anderson v. Watt, 138 U.S. 694, 11 S.Ct. 449, 34 L.Ed. 1078; Desmare v. United States, 93 U.S. 605, 23 L.Ed. Here appellants ......