Staver Carriage Co. v. Park Steel Co.

• Decision Date: 05 April 1906
• Citation: 77 N.E. 174,220 Ill. 412
• Parties: STAVER CARRIAGE CO. v. PARK STEEL CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

220 Ill. 412

77 N.E. 174

STAVER CARRIAGE CO.

v.PARK STEEL CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1906.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1906.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District.

Action by the Park Steel Company against the Staver Carriage Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant on a plea of set-off, which was reversed on appeal to the Appellate Court, defendant appeals. Reversed.Bulkley, Gray & More, for appellant.

Musgrave, Vroman & Lee, for appellee.

CARTWRIGHT, C. J.

Appellee, the Park Steel Company, brought this suit in assumpsit in the circuit court of Cook county against appellant, the Staver Carriage Company, to recover $465.30 for tire steel sold and delivered in pursuance of a contract. Appellant pleaded a set-off of $2,019 damages resulting from the failure and refusal of appellee to deliver all the tire steel which it was bound to deliver under the contract. The case was tried on the plea of set-off, and there was a verdict, followed by a judgment, for appellant for $1,234.70. Appellee removed the case by appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, and that court reversed the judgment of the circuit court, and entered judgment in favor of appellee and against appellant for $507.50, the amount sued for, with interest.

The contract was executed on August 4, 1898, between Park Bro. & Co., a firm of which plaintiff is successor, and the Staver Carriage Company, and thereby plaintiff became bound to deliver to defendant ‘all the tire steel of good and suitable quality which will be used in buyer's works prior to September 1, 1899, not to exceed 14,000 sets nor to be less than 10,000 sets,’ at the prices and on the terms therein specified. The only plea being the plea of set-off, the demand of plaintiff was admitted and the controversy was over the set-off. The trial court found the controverted facts relating to the set-off in favor of the defendant, and the judgment of the Appellate Court does not contain any finding of facts, so that the facts were found the same by both courts. The cause was not remanded, and therefore the reversal was not on account of any erroneous rulings on the trial which could have been avoided or remedied upon another trial. The necessary conclusion is that the Appellate Court, having found the facts the same as the trial court, held that such facts were insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain the set-off. Counsel for both parties so understand the decision and judgment of the Appellate Court, and are agreed that our decision depends upon the construction to be given to that part of the contract above quoted. Within the limitations as to the number of sets fixed by the contract, it was a supply contract to meet the requirements of defendant's business; and, in order to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties, the nature and necessities of the business and the surrounding circumstances are to be considered.

Plaintiff was a manufacturer of tire steel at Pittsburg, Pa. Defendant was a manufacturer of buggies and carriages at Auburn Park, Ill., and used large quantities of tire steel in its factory. A set of tire steel consists of four pieces suitable for the four wheels of one buggy or carriage. They are delivered in long, flat pieces tied in bundles, and, when delivered, one set of defendant's men would sort them and put them in bins for the different sizes, another set of men would take the tires from the bins and punch them, a third set would bend the tires and weld them, and they were then put on the wheels by another set, who riveted them and bolted them, and the wheels then went to the paint shop. The pieces of tire steel varied in size from the proper length for a wheel, 36 inches in diameter, to one 47 inches in diameter, and from three-fourths of an inch in width to 1 1/4 inches, and they also varied in thickness, and the defendant, in the prosecution of its business, used 132 different sizes. There is a great variety of wheels, and in filling orders it was necessary to keep on hand a great many sets, and defendant usually had from 2,000 to 3,000 sets in the bins. The daily capacity of the factory for putting tires on wheels ranged from 75 to 150 sets. The dispute as to the meaning of the...