Small Co v. Lamborn Co, 100
| Decision Date | 02 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 100,100 |
| Citation | 69 L.Ed. 597,45 S.Ct. 300,267 U.S. 248 |
| Parties | A. B. SMALL CO. v. LAMBORN & CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Edgar Watkins, Mac Asbill, Horace Russell, and Frederick T. Saussy, all of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Orville A. Park, of Macon, Ga., for defendant in error.
On April 30 and May 7, 1920, the parties to this case entered into contracts for the sale by one and purchase by the other of 450 barrels of refined sugar, to be shipped by the seller from a refinery at Port Wentworth, Ga., to the buyer at Macon, in the same state, between July 15 and October 1. Late in July 150 barrels were shipped, accepted and paid for. About that time the market price began to decline and continued downward for the rest of the year. Late in August the seller shipped 150 barrels more, but when it reached Macon the buyer refused to accept it, suggested that it be stored 'for the benefit of whom it may concern,' which was done, and notified the seller that any further shipment would be similarly refused. Correspondence followed in which the seller sought to persuade the buyer to adhere to the contracts. Late in September, before the expiration of the time for completing delivery, the seller notified the buyer that, if the refusal to conform to the contracts was continued, the remaining 300 barrels, which included the 150 stored at Macon, would be resold for the account of the buyer and the latter would be held for the difference between the contract price and what was realized on the resale. The buyer persisted in the refusal and the sugar was resold.
This action was brought by the seller to recover from the buyer the difference between the contract price and the amount obtained on the resale. In the District Court a verdict and judgment were given to the seller; and the buyer brought the case here on direct writ of error, a constitutional question being involved.
One defense interposed by the answer was that the contracts were wanting in mutuality and therefore void. A demurrer to the defense was sustained, and this is assigned as error. Two clauses in the contracts are cited as making delivery optional with the seller, and therefore showing a want of mutuality. But in our opinion the clauses are not open to that construction. The contracts, signed by both parties, evidenced an agreement by the seller to deliver the sugar within a designated period at a fixed price, as well as an agreement by the buyer to take the sugar and to pay the price. They contemplated that the buyer might be accorded the privilege of calling for special deliveries, known as 'withdrawals,' during the prescribed period, if the seller was in a position reasonably to make them. And they contained alternative 'terms' of payment—'Cash before delivery less 2%, or cash in seven days less 2%.' The clauses in question then followed. One was, 'Terms and withdrawal subject to the approval of the seller's credit department.' Read in the light of established practices in the sugar trade, this clause meant that, when a shipment was made, the seller's credit department was to elect which of the alternative terms of payment should apply, and also that, if the buyer called for special deliveries, known as 'with drawals,' that department was to determine whether such deliveries reasonably could be made and was to approve or disapprove them accordingly. The clause was essentially subsidiary and entirely consistent with the seller's definite agreement to make delivery within the period prescribed. The other clause was to the effect that, 'if the supply of raw material of the refinery manufacturing the sugar' should be interrupted by war conditions, embargoes, strikes or other like cause, and if delivery was thereby prevented, the seller should 'not be responsible.' There is nothing in this clause which affords any basis for saying that delivery was to be optional with the seller. On the contrary, it recognizes that he was obligating himself to make delivery. Its evident and only purpose was to relieve him from liability in the event that performance of the obligation was prevented by particular circumstances, in their nature beyond his control. It is idle to suggest, as was done in argument, that the clause would permit him to avoid delivery by merely selecting a refinery which by reason of war conditions, embargoes or strikes was already cut off from a supply of raw material. That would not be within either the letter or the spirit of the clause, but would be a palpable fraud and unavailing. Slater v. Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, 28 Ga. App. 280, 284, 110 S. E. 759.
The answer set up a special defense based on the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (Comp. St. §§ 8820-8823, 8827-8830), prohibiting restraints and monopolies in interstate and foreign commerce. A demurrer to the defense was sustained and the ruling is assigned as error. But it was plainly right. In the first place, the contracts pertained only to intrastate commerce. They were negotiated in Georgia; the sugar was to be delivered from a refinery at Port Wentworth and shipped to Macon, both in Georgia; and no facts were alleged showing that interstate or foreign commerce was affected. In the next place, and independently of the character of commerce involved, it was not shown that the contracts were in themselves invalid under the Anti-Trust Act, but only that they were collateral to a combination prohibited by it. In substance, the defense was that the seller and others had entered into a combination to manipulate interstate trade in refined sugar with a view to increasing the price; that the contracts were made during the life of the combination; and that the seller conformed the terms of sale to standards sanctioned by the combination. There was no allegation that it was not the owner of the sugar; nor any allegation that the buyer was a party to the combination or other than a stranger to it. The contracts disclosed the full transaction between the seller and buyer and contemplated that the sale should pass the title without any restriction on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Refining Co. v. Gasoline Products Co.
...the exception stated the remedies provided by the anti-trust laws are exclusive of all others. The case of Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co., 267 U. S. 248, 45 S. Ct. 300, 69 L. Ed. 597, was one in which the parties had entered into contracts for sale by one and purchase by the other of 450 barrel......
-
FW Woolworth Co. v. Davis, 187.
...as distinguished from a scintilla or modicum of evidence, to justify submission of a case to a jury. In Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co., 267 U. S. 248, 254, 45 S. Ct. 300, 303, 69 L. Ed. 597, the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Van Devanter, "The rule for testing the direction of a verdict, ......
-
Brock v. Railroad Co., 29997.
...Co. v. Wells, 275 U.S. 455, 72 L. Ed. 370; Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Nixon, 271 U.S. 218, 70 L. Ed. 914; Small v. Lamborn & Co., 267 U.S. 250, 69 L. Ed. 597; M.C. Ry. Co. v. Timmerman, 24 Fed. (2d) 23; Lehigh Valley v. Mangan, 278 Fed. 88; Unadilla Valley Ry. Co. v. Caldine, 278 U.S......
-
Armstrong v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co.
...& S.F. Railroad Co. v. Toops, 281 U.S. 351, 50 Sup. Ct. 281; Gulf Railroad Co. v. Wells, 275 U.S. 455, 72 L. Ed. 370; Samuel v. Lamborn & Co., 267 U.S. 250, 69 L. Ed. 597; Southern Railroad Co. v. Walters, 52 Sup. Ct. 58. (5) Plaintiff's Instruction 1 is fatally erroneous in submitting as a......