Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. Roquemore
Decision Date | 21 December 1909 |
Docket Number | 1,926. |
Citation | 175 F. 11 |
Parties | VULCAN IRON WORKS CO. v. ROQUEMORE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
This is an action for damages for the breach of a contract of sale. It was brought by the defendant in error (the plaintiff below) against the plaintiff in error (the defendant below) in the city court of Montgomery, and was duly removed on the ground of diverse citizenship to the Circuit Court.
On January 13, 1905, the Vulcan Iron Works Company, an Ohio corporation, sold to John D. Roquemore, a citizen of Alabama a shovel called the 'Baby Giant.' For convenience it will hereafter be called the 'first shovel.' Afterwards, on December 22, 1905, the Vulcan Iron Works Company (hereinafter called the 'seller') sold to Roquemore (hereinafter called the 'buyer'), by a written contract of sale, a machine called the 'Little Giant Special Steam Shovel.' This machine will hereafter be referred to as the 'second shovel.' The following is the contract of sale:
Per W. H. A. Read, Vice-President.
'John D. Roquemore.'
The declaration claimed $5,000 as damages for the breach of the contract, which was set out in full. It concluded with the following averment and charge of breach:
'And plaintiff avers that the specifications mentioned in and attached to the said contract called for and required, among other things, a boiler, which was to be used as a necessary part of said shovel, to wit, fifty-four inches in diameter and eight feet six inches in height, also to have attached thereto a boiler feed called a Pemberthy injector.
'And plaintiff avers that the defendant violated the terms of said contract on its part, in that it failed to ship to the plaintiff a shovel with a boiler of the dimensions as required by the said contract and specifications thereto attached; that the defendant did, on or about the first of March, 1906, ship to the plaintiff a steam shovel and a boiler to be used in connection therewith and as a part thereof, but which was materially different from the boiler called for in said contract; that the boiler so shipped was of dimensions of, to wit, forty-eight inches in diameter and seven feet six inches in height and was totally incapable of operating the said shovel; that said boiler did not have attached thereto a Pemberthy injector, as by the said contract called for; and that one of the engines in connection with and to be used in the operation of the said shovel and as a part thereof was defective, in that there was an opening or hole in the steam chest of said engine, made when the said engine was casted, so that the steam escaped therefrom, rendering the same incapable of being operated, and plaintiff refused to accept said shovel so shipped; that plaintiff paid the freight on said shovel, thus shipped, from Toledo, Ohio, to Montgomery, Ala., amounting to, to wit, $500.00, which has never been repaid to plaintiff; that the value of the shovel stipulated to be delivered by plaintiff to defendant on the delivery and acceptance by plaintiff of the shovel agreed to be shipped in accordance with said contract was, to wit, $1,500.00, all to the damage of the plaintiff as aforesaid, wherefore plaintiff sues.'
The seller, among other pleas, filed the following:
'(6) And for further answer * * * the defendant says that the plaintiff should not recover for the alleged breach of the contract as complained of in said complaint, for that in the said contract which in said complaint is alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on, to wit, December 22, 1905, a copy of which said contract is hereto attached as Exhibit A, and made a part of this plea with leave to refer thereto, there was contained the following paragraph:
That thereupon and during the trial test of said steam shovel, the defendant, as it had a right to do under said provision contained in said contract as hereinabove set out, offered to replace such parts or to make such changes as were necessary and make said Little Giant Steam Shovel accord in every respect to the specifications of said contract, but that the plaintiff refused to allow and would not permit the defendant to replace such parts as were defective or to make such changes as were found necessary by the defendant to make said Little Giant Steam Shovel in accordance with the contract which was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. Wherefore the defendant says that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this suit.'
The seller's eighth plea stated the same facts substantially as set out in the sixth plea, and then alleged that it
Demurrers were interposed to these pleas alleging various grounds to the effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
B.F. Sturtevant Co. v. Champion Fibre Co.
... ... cost of supplying the defects. Nashua Iron & Steel Co. v ... Brush, 91 F. 213, 215, 33 C.C.A. 456. In that case, ... 5th Cir.) ... 141 F. 834, 72 C.C.A. 300 (but see Vulcan Iron Works v ... Roquemore (C.C.A. 5th Cir.) 175 F. 11, 16, 99 C.C.A ... ...
-
Marks v. Twohy Bros. Co.
...appears to be perfect and complete, the terms of a contractual consideration cannot be contradicted or varied by parol. Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. Roquemore, 175 F. 11, 99 C. C. A. 77; Leftkovitz v. Gadsden First Nat. Bank, 152 Ala. 521, 529, 44 So. 613; Ashley, etc., R. Co. v. Cunningham, 12......
-
Gaunt v. Ralston Purina Co.
... ... 70; Marsh et al. v ... McPherson, 105 U.S. 709, 26 L.Ed. 1139; Vulcan Iron ... Works v. Roquemore, 175 F. 11, 99 C.C.A. 77; 2 Sedgwick ... on ... ...
-
Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Automobile Sundries Co.
... ... from the usual rule of damages. Vulcan Iron Works Co. v ... Roquemore, 175 F. 11, 99 C.C.A. 77; Parsons v ... ...