Weill v. American Metal Co.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtCRAIG
Citation182 Ill. 128,54 N.E. 1050
Decision Date19 October 1899
PartiesWEILL v. AMERICAN METAL CO.

182 Ill. 128
54 N.E. 1050

WEILL
v.
AMERICAN METAL CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct, 19, 1899.


Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Assumpsit by the American Metal Company against Maurice Weill. From a judgment of the appellate court affirming a judgment of the lower court in favor of plaintiff (80 Ill. App. 406), defendant appeals. Affirmed.


[182 Ill. 129]

[54 N.E. 1051]

Pam, Donnelly & Glennon and M. J. Isaacs, for appellant.

Hoyne, O'Connor & Hoyne, for appellee.


CRAIG, J.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the appellee to recover damages for the failure of appellant to accept a certain quantity of lead and spelter which appellee had sold appellant. The contract was established by the letters and telegrams of the parties read in evidence on the trial, from which it appeared that appellee sold appellant eight cars of pig lead and eight cars of spelter, to be shipped to East St. Louis or Chicago, at appellant's option; the lead at $3.65 per 100 pounds f. o. b. Chicago, or $3.60 per 100 pounds f. o. b. East St. Louis, and the speiter at $4.20 per 100 pounds f. o. b. Chicago, or $4.15 per 100 pounds f. o. b. East St. Louis; two cars each of metal to be shipped in each of the months of March, April, May, and June, 1893, and payment to be made by payment of sight draft, with bill of lading attached. In March and April, 1893, appellee shipped appellant two cars of pig lead and two cars of spelter, and in May, 1893, two cars of pig lead and one car of spelter, which were [182 Ill. 130]paid for. On May 29th, at appellant's request, it was agreed that the shipment of one of the two cars of spelter to be shipped in May should be postponed until July, and that the shipment of the two cars of spelter to be shipped in June should be postponed until August. In June, appellee, by the direction of appellant, shipped to Chicago the two cars of lead to be shipped in that month, and on June 21st appellee drew a sight draft on appellant for $2,360.56, the amount of the shipment, and sent it, with the bill of lading, to Chicago for collection. The draft was presented, but payment refused unless appellee would allow $133.99, which appellant claimed grew out of transactions between the parties prior to the making of the present contract. Appellee denied the claim, and refused to allow it. On July 17th appellee wrote appellant for shipping directions for the car load of spelter to be shipped in July, but no shipping directions were given. On August 10th appellee wrote to appellant for shipping directions for the two cars of spelter to be shipped in August, saying: ‘You are undoubtedly aware that it is necessary for me to have sufficient time to effect shipment, and I hereby request you to let me have shipping instructions for these two car loads on or before August 21st. Unless I am on the 21st of August in possession of your shipping instructions for the said two cars of spelter, I shall infer that you decline to take delivery of the said two car loads.’ To this letter appellant made no reply. The action was brought to recover damages for appellant's failure to accept and pay for the lead and spelter, and on a trial before a jury appellee secured a verdict and judgment for $1,136, which was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 17 Julio 1923
    ...v. Horst, 178 U.S. 1, 44 L. ed. 956; Anvil Mining Co. v. Humble, 153 U.S. 540; Lowe v. Harwood, 29 N.E. 538; Weill v. American Metal Co., 54 N.E. 1050; Paine v. Brown, 37 N.Y. 228; Ballou v. Billings, 136 Mass. 307; King v. Faist, 37 N.E. 459; Busch v. Stromberg-Carlson Co., 217 F. 328, S. ......
  • New Bedford Cotton Waste Co. v. Eugen C. Andres Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 3 Diciembre 1926
    ...failed to give shipping directions. The judge was right in treating this as a breach of the contract. Weill v. American Metal Co., 182 Ill. 128, 54 N. E. 1050;Salmon v. Helena Box Co., 147 F. 408, 77 C. C. A. 586;Id, 158 F. 300, 85 C. C. A. 551. [5][6] The defendant contends that this breac......
  • Wiggin v. Marsh Lumber Co, (No. 3183.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 20 Febrero 1917
    ...984; Harrow Spring Co. v. Harrow Co., 90 Mich. 147, 51 N. W. 197, 30 Am. St. Rep. 421; Posey v. Scales, 55 Ind. 282; Weill v. Metal Co., 182 Ill. 128, 54 N. E. 1050; Hunter v. Wetsell, 84 N. Y. 549, 38 Am. Rep. 544; Armitage v. Insole, 14 Ad. & Ell. (68 E. C. L.) 727. Stipulations as to qua......
  • Arnolt Corp. v. Stansen Corp., No. 10276
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 28 Mayo 1951
    ...buyer, it becomes the duty of the buyer to give notice or direction as to the time and place of delivery. In Weill v. American Metal Co., 182 Ill. 128, 54 N.E. 1050, it was held that the refusal or failure of a purchaser to give shipping directions was a breach of a contract of sale in whic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 17 Julio 1923
    ...v. Horst, 178 U.S. 1, 44 L. ed. 956; Anvil Mining Co. v. Humble, 153 U.S. 540; Lowe v. Harwood, 29 N.E. 538; Weill v. American Metal Co., 54 N.E. 1050; Paine v. Brown, 37 N.Y. 228; Ballou v. Billings, 136 Mass. 307; King v. Faist, 37 N.E. 459; Busch v. Stromberg-Carlson Co., 217 F. 328, S. ......
  • New Bedford Cotton Waste Co. v. Eugen C. Andres Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 3 Diciembre 1926
    ...failed to give shipping directions. The judge was right in treating this as a breach of the contract. Weill v. American Metal Co., 182 Ill. 128, 54 N. E. 1050;Salmon v. Helena Box Co., 147 F. 408, 77 C. C. A. 586;Id, 158 F. 300, 85 C. C. A. 551. [5][6] The defendant contends that this breac......
  • Wiggin v. Marsh Lumber Co, (No. 3183.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 20 Febrero 1917
    ...984; Harrow Spring Co. v. Harrow Co., 90 Mich. 147, 51 N. W. 197, 30 Am. St. Rep. 421; Posey v. Scales, 55 Ind. 282; Weill v. Metal Co., 182 Ill. 128, 54 N. E. 1050; Hunter v. Wetsell, 84 N. Y. 549, 38 Am. Rep. 544; Armitage v. Insole, 14 Ad. & Ell. (68 E. C. L.) 727. Stipulations as to qua......
  • Arnolt Corp. v. Stansen Corp., No. 10276
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 28 Mayo 1951
    ...buyer, it becomes the duty of the buyer to give notice or direction as to the time and place of delivery. In Weill v. American Metal Co., 182 Ill. 128, 54 N.E. 1050, it was held that the refusal or failure of a purchaser to give shipping directions was a breach of a contract of sale in whic......
  • 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