Speirs v. Union Drop-forge Co.

Decision Date12 July 1899
Citation54 N.E. 497,174 Mass. 175
PartiesSPEIRS v. UNION DROP-FORGE CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

The case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts, which follows:

"The plaintiff, in the years 1896 and 1897, owned and operated a drop-forge plant in the city of Worcester, doing business under the name and style of John C. Speirs & Co. The defendant, in the years 1896 and 1897, owned and operated a drop-forge plant in the city of Chicago, in the state of Illinois. On the 24th day of March, 1896, the plaintiff and the defendant executed an agreement, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked 'Exhibit A,' and may be referred to. On the 1st day of June, 1896, the plaintiff's entire plant and shop and all his machinery, tools, and implements necessary for producing forgings, except one drop hammer which said plaintiff reserved for his own use for forging wrench forgings, as stated in said agreement, were ready to produce forgings for the defendant under said agreement. And said plant, shop, machinery, tools, and implements were ready and in preparation for work, and plaintiff notified defendant of that fact. About April 1, 1896, the defendant met the plaintiff and agreed upon prices to be paid for the manufacture of certain kinds of drop forgings which might be manufactured by the plaintiff for the defendant under said agreement. Under said agreement, the plaintiff, as provided in paragraph 2 thereof, was to furnish at actual cost any and all dies that might be required for the forgings manufactured by the plaintiff under said agreement, and plaintiff was at all times ready and willing so to furnish such dies. Between June 1, 1896, and October 13, 1896, the plaintiff several times asked the defendant to furnish him work, and was at all times willing to perform work under said agreement for the defendant; but the defendant furnished no work, and on October 13, 1896, in a letter to the plaintiff, the defendant wrote as follows: 'In the terribly disturbed condition of finance, and everything else in the country, we have made no effort to get work; and yet we have had executed contracts in our hands, some of them for two months, without any specifications to execute. The fact is even our best Western manufacturers have been at their wits' end to know just what to do, or when to begin, and to what extent to employ their plants. But there seems to be a movement of the waters indicating considerable activity in the near future, as soon as the election is over. At any rate, we are getting ready for a rush of business, and hope we will not be disappointed. Thereupon, on November 4, 1896, the plaintiff, through his attorneys, notified the defendant that he would hold the defendant responsible, under the said agreement, for his damages by reason of defendant's alleged breach thereof and the plaintiff immediately went into the market and attempted to get work for his shop from other parties than the defendant. It is agreed that the above facts shall be taken to be all the facts material to this case. It is further agreed that if, under the above statement of facts, the court shall be of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in this case under said agreement, then the case shall be sent to an assessor, to be appointed by the superior court, to determine the amount of damages for which judgment for plaintiff shall be entered, and that otherwise judgment shall be entered for the defendant.

"Exhibit A: This agreement, made and entered into this 24th day of March, A.D.1896, by and between the Union Drop-Forge Company, of Chicago (an Illinois corporation) party of the first part, and John C. Speirs & Co., of the city of Worcester, state of Massachusetts, party of the second part, witnesseth: (1) That the said first party is desirous of employing, and does hereby employ, said second party to produce certain drop forgings at his drop-forge plant and shop in the city of Worcester, Massachusetts, for and during the period beginning with the 1st day of June, 1896, and ending with the 31st day of May, 1897. (2) The said party of the second part hereby agrees to, and does hereby, accept said employment, and agrees to give during said period, to the said first party, the full and entire use of his said plant and shop, and to furnish all machinery, tools, and implements at their own expense which shall be required for the purposes of producing said forgings (excepting one drop hammer, which said second party desires to reserve for their own use for forging wrench forgings only), and to furnish at actual cost any and all dies required for above forgings. (3) The said first party agrees to furnish all of the steel or other material for the manufacture and product of said drop forgings, which said steel and the manufactured product therefrom and all scrap which shall be produced by said forging shall be and remain at all times the property of the said first party. (4) The forgings so produced and manufactured shall be shipped by said second party, f.o.b. Worcester, as the said first party shall from time to time direct; and the said scrap which shall be produced from said forging shall be sold by said second party for and on account of the party of the first part, and the proceeds thereof shall be fully accounted for to it by them. (5) The prices to be paid for the manufacture of said drop forgings shall be determined from time to time by the mutual agreement of the parties hereto. (6) The said party of the second part shall render monthly statements of account to the said party of the first part, which shall remit and pay the amount of the same on or before the 10th of the succeeding month. In witness whereof, the said party of the first part has caused this instrument to be executed by its president, and attested by its secretary under its corporate seal, and the said second party have hereunto set their hands and seals. (All dates in ink and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Speirs v. Union Drop-forge Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1901
    ...W. King, and C. M. Rice, for defendant. OPINION HOLMES, C.J. This is an action of contract which already has been before the court. 174 Mass. 175, 54 N.E. 497. It having been that the instrument sued upon bound the defendant to keep the plaintiff and his shop employed during the year from J......
  • Shayeb v. Holland
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1947
    ... ... This ... principle of interpretation has been frequently followed in ... this court. Speirs v. Union Drop Forge Co. 174 Mass ... 175 ... Niles v. Graham, 181 Mass. 41. Letts-Parker ... ...
  • Kirkley v. F.H. Roberts Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • July 8, 1929
    ...its terms must be fixed at a future time or by subsequent events. Evers v. Gilfoil, 247 Mass. 219, 141 N. E. 926;Speirs v. Union Drop-Forge Co., 174 Mass. 175, 54 N. E. 497;Silver v. Graves, 210 Mass. 26, 95 N. E. 948;Williams v. Knibbs, 213 Mass. 534, 100 N. E. 666. The duration of the emp......
  • Shugg v. American Shoe & Leather Ass'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1906
    ... ... R. A. 707, 38 ... Am. St. Rep. 460; Cutter v. Gillette, 163 Mass. 95, ... 39 N.E. 1010; Speirs v. Union Drop-Forge Co., 174 ... Mass ... ...
  • 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