Manhattan Oil Co. v. Richardson Lubricating Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1902
• Docket Number: 78,79.
• Citation: 113 F. 923
• Parties: MANHATTAN OIL CO. v. RICHARDSON LUBRICATING CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

113 F. 923

MANHATTAN OIL CO. v. RICHARDSON LUBRICATING CO.

Nos. 78, 79.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 25, 1902

Chas De H. Brower, for plaintiff.

Delos McCurdy, for defendant.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE Circuit Judge.

The Richardson Lubricating Company, the plaintiff in the court below, and the Manhattan Oil Company, the defendant in the court below, have each brought a writ of error to review a judgment for the plaintiff rendered upon the verdict of a jury.

The action was brought to recover damages for the breach by the defendant of a written contract between the parties dated December 30, 1898, the material provisions of which read as follows:

'The Manhattan Oil Co. agrees to sell to the Richardson Lubricating Co., and the Richardson Lubricating Oil Co. agrees to buy of the Manhattan Oil Co., all the 28 degree and 30 degree paraffine oil and asphalt oil they may require for their own use for a period of twelve months from the date hereof. Quality of the oil is to be of the Manhattan Oil Company's best grade; price to be 3 1/2 cents per gallon and 28 gravity paraffine oil, 3 cents for 30 gravity paraffine oil, and 2 cents for asphalt oil, free on board cars at Gallatea, Ohio, in bulk; payments to be made 60 days from the date of invoice; shipments to be made in the tank cars of the Manhattan Oil Co. within six days of the receipt of the order, or earlier if possible.' Plaintiff was a manufacturer of lubricating greases and compounded oils, and during the year preceding the contract had purchased oils of the defendant for its manufacturing uses.

It was proved upon the trial that the defendant complied with the contract and made deliveries of oil as ordered by the plaintiff until November, 1899, but thereafter refused to deliver 1,020,000 gallons ordered within the year. Evidence was given for the plaintiff of a tender of the contract price and a formal demand for the delivery of the oil made on the 29th day of December, 1899, and a refusal by the defendant. Evidence was also given for the plaintiff showing the daily capacity of its concern for the consumption of such oil as was ordered, and the market price in December, 1899.

The defendant did not introduce any evidence, and, at the close of the plaintiff's case, requested the court to instruct the jury to render a verdict for the defendant. This was refused, and the defendant excepted. The trial judge instructed the jury, in substance, that the defendant was entitled to recover the difference between the contract price of the oil ordered and the market price at the times when the oil should have been delivered, but the plaintiff was only entitled to order such quantity as it could use within the year ending December 30, 1899, and that, according to the true construction of the contract, the defendant did not undertake to sell any oil which might be required by the defendant for its use after the expiration of the year, but did undertake to sell the quantity their business would require for the 12 months. The plaintiff requested an instruction that 'the only limitations upon the amount of oil which the plaintiff was entitled to order for its own use were the liability of the plaintiff to pay therefor, and the capacity of the plaintiff's works to use within a reasonable period after December 30, 1899. ' The instruction was refused, and the plaintiff excepted.

The exceptions which have been referred...