N. B. Brown & Co. v. The St. John Trust Company
Citation | 80 P. 37,71 Kan. 134 |
Decision Date | 11 March 1905 |
Docket Number | 13,992 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | N. B. BROWN & CO. v. THE ST. JOHN TRUST COMPANY |
Decided January, 1905.
Error from Reno district court; MATTHEW P. SIMPSON, judge.
STATEMENT.
THE alleged non-compliance with a contract made between N. B Brown & Co. and the St. John Trust Company for the pasturage of cattle was the basis of an action brought by the former against the latter. The following is a copy of the contract:
By A. E. ASHER, Secretary.
By HOWARD GRAY, Treasurer.
N. B. BROWN & CO."
The overstocking of the pasture, and the failure to furnish sufficient salt and water for the cattle, are the breaches of which complaint is made. After the plaintiffs offered their evidence the court sustained a demurrer thereto, and gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs complain.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. CONTRACTS--Interpretation. The interpretation of an unambiguous written contract is a matter of law for the court, and such a contract, when completed, is supposed to embody all prior understandings and negotiations, and is not to be enlarged, varied or contradicted by parol testimony.
2. CONTRACTS--Terms Construed. The contract in question held to be for the furnishing of a particular pasture, and not for furnishing sufficient pasturage for a certain number of cattle.
3. CONTRACTS--Liability for Damages. The neglect of duties devolving on plaintiffs' own agent furnishes them no basis for the recovery of damages from the defendant.
G. L. Miller, for plaintiffs in error.
George A. Vandeveer, and F. L. Martin, for defendant in error.
MASON, J., not sitting.
OPINION
The result of this proceeding depends mainly upon the interpretation to be placed upon the contract quoted in the foregoing statement. There had been negotiations between the parties for pasture in Kansas for cattle then in Texas, and a representative of N. B. Brown & Co. came to Hutchinson Kan., expecting to rent the Pierceville pasture, but when he arrived he found that the defendant had already disposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fuchs v. Leahy
...141 S.W. 547; Ringer v. Wilkins, 183 Pac. 988; 2 C.J. 855; 2 Mechem on Agency, sec. 2140; Walker, Real Estate Agency, 300; Brown v. Trust Co., 71 Kan. 134; Blair v. Baird, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 134; Smith v. Farrell, 66 Mo. App. 8; Pine Mtn. Iron & Coal Co. v. Bailey, 94 Fed. 258; Bank of Milfo......
-
The Kansas Wheat Growers Association v. Rowan
... ... contradiction thereto. In Brown v. Trust Co., 71 ... Kan. 134, 80 P. 37, it was said: ... ...
-
Murphy v. Keating
... ... [283 N.W. 391] ... [204 ... Minn. 270] John M. Gannon, of Hibbing, for appellants ... H. A ... Sanborn, 315 Pa. 188, 192, 172 A. 657, ... 658; N. B. Brown & Co. v. St. John Trust Co., 71 ... Kan. 134, 138, 80 P. 37, 38; 2 C.J ... the purpose of caring for injured employes of the railway ... company and their families. It was not incorporated. The [204 ... Minn. 279] ... ...
-
Cox v. Chase
...the pasturage of cattle, and is not a lease." 95 Kan. 535, 148 P. 768, L. R. A. 1915E, 590. It was said that in the case of Brown v. Trust Co., 71 Kan. 134, 80 P. 37, on by the plaintiff, the parties went over the pasture and examined it before contracting. "While here the defendants had ne......