Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Jacobs
Citation | 175 N.W. 796,170 Wis. 389 |
Parties | SHEFFIELD-KING MILLING CO. v. JACOBS. |
Decision Date | 13 January 1920 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dodge County; Martin L. Lueck, Judge.
Action by the Sheffield-King Milling Company against F. S. Jacobs. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Contract. From the complaint it appears that the plaintiff is a Minnesota corporation located at the city of Minneapolis, and manufacturers and marketers of a certain grade and quality of flour known as “Gold Mine”; that on the 7th day of May, 1917, the defendant, a dealer residing at the city of Waupun, by written contract purchased 205 barrels of Gold Mine flour, 196 pounds to the barrel, which was packed in cotton bags each containing 49 pounds, and agreed to pay for the same at the rate of $12.10 per barrel. Said contract was duly executed by the parties, and the parts material here are as follows:
“Dated Waupun, Wisconsin, May 7, 1917.
Sheffield-King Milling Co., of Minneapolis, Minn., agrees to sell to F. S. Jacobs, of Waupun, Wisconsin, who agrees to purchase from seller at Faribault, Minn., at the price, on the terms and conditions, and subject to the agreements stated below and on the back hereof, the following goods:
Number of barrels of flour, 205.
Style of package, 49 lb. cotton.
Brand, ‘Gold Mine’ flour.
Price of flour per barrel, $12.10.
Subject to confirmation of Sheffield-King Mfg. Co.
Ship to Waupun, Wisconsin.
Railroad delivery requested by buyer, C., M. & St. P.
On directions to be furnished by buyer, shipment is to be made by seller after September 15th and before January 1, 1918.
Terms: Net. Arrival draft with bill of lading attached.
State Bank of Waupun, Wisconsin.
Freight allowed to Waupun, Wisconsin.”
“[Paragraph relating to shipping directions not material.]
Par. 2. Buyer's failure or refusal to so furnish such directions on or before shipping date above, or within any extended period, if any, shall give seller right, as to any flour and also as to any feed, if any, remaining unshipped by reason of such failure or refusal, to either: (a) Treat contract as if rescinded without damages to either party; or (b) extend shipping date above, or extended period, if any, 30 days, and thereafter (as long as buyer fails or refuses to furnish such directions) continue the life of this contract by as many such successive extensions as seller may desire, all subject to hereinafter mentioned carrying charges against buyer; or (c) ship such goods to buyer within 30 days after shipping date above, or expiration of last extended period, exercising its judgment as to packages desired by buyer; or (d) treat contract as broken and (as to such unshipped goods only) terminate contract at 5 o'clock p. m. central time, on shipping date above, or, if said date has been extended, then on last day of last extended period, and, as to such unshipped flour, recover from buyer (less any sum, if any, paid by way of carrying charges on such unshipped flour only) a sum to be calculated as follows: The difference between highest closing price, at Minneapolis, of No. 1 northern (cash) wheat (delivered) on date this contract bears and highest closing price, at Minneapolis, of No. 1 northern (cash) wheat (delivered) on date of such termination (if latter price be less than former) multiplied by the number of bushels of wheat required to manufacture such unshipped flour, figuring 4 1/2 bushels to the barrel plus a sum equal to 1 cent multiplied by the number of bushels aforesaid (to be calculated for each 30 days, or fraction thereof, intervening between date of this contract and date of such termination), plus, also, a sum equal to 4 cents multiplied by the number of bushels aforesaid. And, if such price of such wheat on date of such termination is greater than price on date of this contract, seller's recovery shall be said 1 cent per bushel for each 30 days, or fraction thereof, aforesaid, and said 4 cents per bushel aforesaid, less such carrying charges paid, and less the difference between said two wheat prices, on the number of bushels aforesaid.”
That plaintiff was at all times between September 15, 1917, and the 2d day of November, 1917, when the plaintiff terminated the contract, ready, able, and willing to perform and carry out its part of this contract, and the plaintiff performed such contract except in so far as performance has been prevented of execution by the conduct of the defendant; that on October 30, 1917, plaintiff received from defendant a letter as follows:
“10/29/17.
Sheffield-King Milling Co., Minneapolis, Minn.___Gentlemen: In reply to yours of Oct. 27th will say I will not remit you anything, but will cancel the contract for new wheat flour contract made May 7th, and effective after Sept. 15th to Jan. 1st, 1918.
I am satisfied to let the court decide what you are entitled to by my cancelling this contract.
+----------------------------+ ¦Yours truly,¦F. S. Jacobs.” ¦ +----------------------------+
That by said letter the defendant intended to and did repudiate and cancel the contract of sale between the parties, within the meaning set out in said contract; that on November 2, 1917, pursuant to the terms of said contract, the plaintiff elected to and did treat the conduct of the defendant as a breach by the defendant of his contract, and did then on said day immediately terminate the contract in accordance with its provisions. In response thereto the plaintiff, on the 2d day of November, mailed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yerxa, Andrews & Thurston v. Randazzo Macaroni v. Company
...Mill Co. v. Hewett, 226 Mich. 35; Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Baking Co., 95 Ohio St. 180; Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Jacobs, 170 Wis. 389, 175 N.W. 796; May v. Crawford, 150 Mo. 504; Goldman v. Goldman, 51 La. Ann. 761; Selby v. Matson, 114 N.W. 609; Ahlers v. Harrison, 108 N.W. 331; ......
-
Wassenaar v. Panos
...of estimating or proving damages, the more likely the stipulated damages will appear reasonable. Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Jacobs, 170 Wis. 389, 402-403, 175 N.W. 796 (1920). If damages are readily ascertainable, a significant deviation between the stipulated amount and the ascertainabl......
-
Jarosch v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...the stipulated damages will appear reasonable.” Wassenaar, 111 Wis.2d at 530–31, 331 N.W.2d 357 (citing Sheffield–King Milling Co. v. Jacobs, 170 Wis. 389, 402–03, 175 N.W. 796 (1920)). And to reiterate, the various facets that make up the “difficulty of ascertainment” test include the diff......
-
Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Torborg
...its provisions to the loss of the other party, still hold it enforceable in whole or in part? I doubt it. In Sheffield-King Milling Co. v. Jacobs, 170 Wis. 389, 175 N.W. 796, 801, we 'The validity of a contract is to be determined as of the date of its execution, and a contract valid when m......