Roberts v. Benjamin

Decision Date09 January 1888
Citation31 L.Ed. 334,8 S.Ct. 393,124 U.S. 64
PartiesROBERTS et al. v. BENJAMIN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Jas. B. Perkins, for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 65 intentionally omitted] Matthew Hale and Esek Cowan, for defendants in error.

BLATCHFORD, J.

This is an action at law, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of New York, by Henry M. Benjamin, a citizen of Wisconsin, against Henry C. Roberts and Archibald S. Clarke, citizens of New York, composing the firm of H. C. Roberts & Co., doing business at Rochester, New York, to recover damages for the alleged failure of the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff a quantity of iron, on a contract for its sale by the former to the latter. The complaint alleged that at the time of the breach of the contract by the defendants the market value of iron of the kind and quality agreed to be sold was much greater than the contract price of the iron, and that, if the iron had been delivered pursuant to the contract, the plaintiff could have sold it at a large profit. The defendants, in their answer, besides denying any liability to the plaintiff, set up by way of counter-claim (1) that the plaintiff was indebted to them in the sum of $796.99, for coal and iron sold and delivered by them to him, and that, as a part of the contract for the sale of the iron upon which the action was brought, it was a condition that the plaintiff should pay to the defendants the $796.99, which he had not done; (2) that, on the sale and delivery to the plaintiff by the defendants of certain coal, the plaintiff had claimed various items of shortage in the oal, for which the defendants had allowed to him $1,926.73; that they had afterwards ascertained that the statements of the plaintiff as to the shortage were untrue, and that they were ready to deliver the iron upon the payment to them by the plaintiff of the $1,926.73. The reply of the plaintiff admitted an indebtedness to the defendants of $112.73, on account of the item of $796.99 claimed in the answer, and, in regard to the $1,926.73, it alleged that the items of shortage had been allowed and agreed to by the defendants. After issue was joined, it was stipulated in writing by the parties, that the action be referred to a person named, 'as sole referee, to hear, try, and determine the issues therein.' Upon this stipulation, on order was entered by the court that the action be referred to such person, 'to determine the issues therein.'

The referee filed his report as follows: 'I, the undersigned, the referee to whom were referred the issues in the action above entitled, do respectfully report that I have heard the allegations and proofs of the respective parties, and the arguments of counsel thereon, and, after due deliberation, report the following as my findings of facts: First. The plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Wisconsin, and resides in the city of Milwaukee, in said state, and the defendants, on and prior to the seventeenth day of July, 1879, were, have since then continued to be, and now are, citizens of the state of New York, residing at Rochester, in said state, and partners in business in said city under the firm name of H. C. Roberts & Co. Second. On or about the seventeenth day of July, 1879, the plaintiff plaintiff inquired of the said defendants, by telegraph, their lowest price for four hundred tons of number two iron and four hundred tons of number one iron, or one cargo of each, delivered afloat at Milwaukee; to which, on the twenty-second day of July, 1879, the said defendants replied by telegram, stating the price at nineteen dollars and fifty cents cash, per ton, for number one foundry iron delivered afloat at Milwaukee, and declining to put any price or to make any agreement for the sale of number two iron, and in a letter, written on the following day, promised and agreed to ship a cargo of the iron about the first day of September, 1879, if the plaintiff should accept the offer. On the twenty-fifth of July, 1879, the plaintiff, by letter, accepted the offer of a cargo of the iron, at $19.50 per ton afloat at Milwaukee; provided that the plaintiff should be allowed the deduction from the price per ton, if freight could be had for less than one dollar per ton; and also provided that the terms should be, instead of cash, a credit of four months, with interest at the rate of seven per cent. per annum after thirty days. The defendants, by letter dated July 28, 1879, accepted the modification of the terms and conditions of sale, and agreed to ship the iron about September 1, 1879, or as soon as they could manufacture it. Third. The term 'cargo,' employed in this correspondence, was understood by the plaintiff and the defendants to mean a cargo of four hundred tons. Fourth. The contract for the delivery of the cargo of iron had no relation to or connection with any other dealings between the parties, and the performance thereof by the defendants was not conditioned upon the performance of any act on the part of the plaintiff other than as stated in the preceding findings. Fifth. The defendants did not deliver the iron or any part of it to the plaintiff on or about the time specified in their offer, nor did they deliver it as soon as they had manufactured the required amount. They postponed the execution of the contract from time to time, and finally insisted, as a condition of the delivery of the iron that the plaintiff should pay certain outstanding indebtedness on other dealings, which the defendants claimed to be due to them from the plaintiff; and, also, as a further condition, that payment for the iron should be made upon delivery; that shipment should be by rail instead of by boat, and in installments of one hundred tons per month, instead of one cargo of the full amount; and that the plaintiff should pay, in addition to the contract price, one dollar per ton for extra freight. The plaintiff did not comply with these conditions, and the iron has never been delivered. Sixth. At the time when the letter containing these conditions was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff, November 7, 1879, the market value of number one foundry iron, of the kind manufactured by the defendants, was thirty-four dollars per ton, afloat in Milwaukee. Seventh. From May, 1878, to November, 1878, the defendants delivered to the plaintiff four hundred and thirty-five tons of iron, of the value of seventeen dollars per ton, to be accounted for by the plaintiff to the defendants at that price. The plaintiff has accounted and paid for all of this iron except 6 1979-2240 tons, for which amount payment has not been made, nor has the iron been returned to the defendants. A statement of this account was submitted by the defendants to the plaintiff, showing that there was due and unpaid thereon $117.02, on the eighteenth day of June, 1879. Eighth. Between April 20, 1876, and October 5, 1878, the defendants sold and delivered to the plaintiff a quantity of coal, a statement of the weights and prices of which was rendered by the defendants to the plaintiff. Upon receipt of the cargoes at Milwaukee, the coal was weighed at the dock by the plaintiff, and thereafter he submitted to the defendants a statement of the weights and demanded a deduction on account of shortage in weight, which he claimed to exist. The defendants assented to and allowed the claim for shortage, and the plaintiff paid the balance of the account in full. The claim for shortage was made by the plaintiff in good faith, upon the basis of weights taken at his dock, and the defendants did not in any manner object to the plaintiff's claim until after he had insisted upon the performance of the contract upon which this action was brought.

Ninth. In the months of October and November, 1878, the defendants sold and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • City of Cleveland v. Walsh Const. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 7, 1922
    ... ... Central Co., 118 U.S. 152, 158, 6 ... Sup.Ct. 1019, 30 L.Ed. 193 (which held the trial not to be ... under sections 649 and 700); Roberts v. Benjamin, 124 U.S ... 64, 71, 8 Sup.Ct. 393, 31 L.Ed. 334; Shipman v. Straitsville ... Co., 158 U.S. 356, 15 Sup.Ct. 886, 39 L.Ed. 1015; ... ...
  • Philadelphia Cas. Co. v. Fechheimer
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 2, 1915
    ... ... Sup.Ct. 924, 44 L.Ed. 1099; Shipman v. Straitsville ... Central Mining Co., 158 U.S. 356, 15 Sup.Ct. 886, 39 ... L.Ed. 1015; Roberts v. Benjamin, 124 U.S. 64, 8 ... Sup.Ct. 393, 31 L.Ed. 334; Paine v. Central Vermont Ry ... Co., 118 U.S. 152, 6 Sup.Ct. 1019, 30 L.Ed. 193; ... ...
  • Scullin Steel Company v. Mississippi Valley Iron Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1925
    ...277; McGhee v. Bell, 170 Mo. 148; Tower v. Pauley, 51 Mo.App. 75; Johnson v. Whitman Agricultural Co., 20 Mo.App. 100; Roberts v. Benjamin, 124 U.S. 64, 31 L.Ed. 334; Morgan v. McKee, 77 Pa. 228. (2) The cause should reversed because of the erroneous theory that time was not of essence of t......
  • American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Westchester County
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 10, 1923
    ... ... supported by the findings of fact. D., L. & W.R. v ... Caboni, 223 F. 631, 139 C.C.A. 177. As it was said in ... Roberts v. Benjamin, 124 U.S. 64, 8 Sup.Ct. 393, ... 31 L.Ed. 334, 'The only questions open to review here ... are whether there was any error of law in ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT