New York & Philadelphia Coal & Coke Co. v. Meyersdale Coal Co.
| Decision Date | 25 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | 2122. |
| Citation | 236 F. 536 |
| Parties | NEW YORK & PHILADELPHIA COAL & COKE CO. v. MEYERSDALE COAL CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Henry W. Hardon, of New York City (Reed, Smith, Shaw & Beal, of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Roger Knox, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Sterling, Higbee & Matthews, of Uniontown, Pa. (E. C. Higbee, of Uniontown, Pa., of counsel) for defendant in error.
Before BUFFINGTON, McPHERSON, and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges.
When this controversy was here before (217 F. 747, 133 C.C.A 441), we held that the case should have gone to the jury on the question whether Hoblitzell, who had carried on the correspondence for the Meyersdale Coal Company, was authorized to bind his company by such a contract as had been sued upon. We also said:
'As we read the letters, they show a complete meeting of minds upon all terms of the contract, and we regard the signing of the suggested form merely as a desirable convenience and not as a condition precedent.'
At that time we had no occasion to take special notice of the letter dated August 13, but we may say now that we think it entitled to consideration as a part of the contract. It was therefore properly received in evidence, but we think its meaning should not have been submitted to the jury. In connection with the other writings, the trial judge should have construed it, especially the following sentence, which has given rise to the only important question now before us 'You understand that we wish the monthly shipment spread over each month, and by that we mean not to ship any large amount on one day and then not ship any more for a long time.'
The bearing of this sentence upon the measure of damages is obvious. If it is not part of the contract, the parties agreed upon the delivery of 2,500 tons 'monthly,' and such an obligation would be fulfilled by delivery on the last day of the month. As no coal was ever delivered, the measure of damages would be the difference between the contract price and the market price at the end of each month. Since, however, the letter justifies the conclusion that the parties intended, and contracted with sufficient clearness, that deliveries should be spread over each month, the best measure available for a complete failure to deliver would be the average price during the month.
The verdict necessarily implies that Hoblitzell had authority to make the contract, but it does not inform us what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowman v. C. O. Jones Bldg. Co.
... ... 72, 36 L. R. A. 777; ... Philadelphia v. Jewell, 135 Pa. St. 329, 19 A. 942 ... 875; Scanlan v. Hodges, 52 F. 354; New ... York, etc., v. Meyersdale, 236 F. 536; Commanche ... ...
-
Continental Grain Co. v. Simpson Feed Co., B-207.
...and the market price prevailing on the last day of the period; Haff v. Pilling, C.C., Pa., 134 F. 294; New York & Philadelphia Coal & Coke Co. v. Meyersdale Coal Co., 3 Cir., 236 F. 536; Ana Maria Sugar Co. v. Quinones, 1 Cir., 251 F. 499; Kutztown Foundry & Machine Co. v. Sloss-Sheffield S......
-
N. P. Sloan Co. v. Uncasville Mfg. Co.
... ... Maurice ... W. Sloan, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in error ... Wm ... respect the situation differs from New York, etc., Co. v ... Meyersdale Co., 236 F. 536, ... ...
-
Codman v. Lloyd
... ... W. Crawford, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant ... John ... ...