Woodstock Iron v. Richmond Extension
Decision Date | 05 March 1889 |
Citation | 32 L.Ed. 819,9 S.Ct. 402,129 U.S. 643 |
Parties | WOODSTOCK IRON Co. v. RICHMOND & D. EXTENSION Co |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case comes from the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of Alabama. The complaint, which was filed in June, 1884, is as follows:
'The plaintiff, which is a corporation created by and under the laws of the state of New Jersey, claims of the defendant, a corporation created by and under the laws of the state of Alabama, and located and having its principal place of business in the county of Calhoun, in the state of Alabama, thirty thousand dollars for the breach of an agreement entered into by it on, to-wit, the 18th day of November, 1881, whereby and wherein said defendant agreed and promised that if said plaintiff would locate and construct, or cause to be located and constructed, the railroad of the Georgia Pacific Railroad Company (or of the new consolidated company then being formed, and to be known as the 'Georgia Pacific Railroad Company') by way of the town of Anniston, it, the said defendant, would donate and pay to the said plaintiff, or as it might direct, the cash sum of thirty thousand dollars, to be paid in money as to one-half—that is, fifteen thousand dollars—when the said Georgia Pacific Railroad Company connected its line with the line of the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company at or above Birmingham, Ala., and the other half—that is, fifteen thousand dollars—when said line was connected with the line of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company (the North & South Alabama Railroad Company) at or above said city of Birmingham, provided said connections be made within three years from date of said contract. And plaintiff avers that it did cause to be located and constructed the railroad of the said Georgia Pacific Railway Company by way of the town of Anniston; that the said Georgia Pacific Railroad Company connected its line with the line of the Alabama Great Soughern Railroad Company at or above said Birmingham on, to-wit, the 1st day of June, 1883, and with the line of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company at or above said city on, to-wit, the 1st day of July, 1883, yet, although the said plaintiff has complied with all the provisions of said contract on its part, the said defendant has failed to comply with the following provisions thereof, viz.: It has failed and refused, and still fails and refuses, to pay, though often requested so to do, any part of said sum of thirty thousand dollars, except the sum of six thousand three hundred and twenty-five dollars, whereby it has become and is indebted to said plaintiff as aforesaid; wherefore this suit. The said plaintiff claims of the said defendant the further sum of thirty thousand dollars for the breach of an agreement entered into by him on, to-wit, the 18th day of November, 1881, in words and figures in substance as follows:
[Seal.] "ALFRED L. TYLER, President.
"SAMUEL NOBLE, Sec'y and Treas.'
'And the plaintiff avers that it did accept the terms proposed by said instrument above set out, in a writing addressed to the president and secretary and treasurer of said Woodstock Iron Company, at Anniston, within four months from the date of said agreement and instrument, which said writing was delivered to said president and secretary and treasurer on, to-wit, the 18th day of January, 1882, and is in words and figures in substance as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Evans v. Jeff
...Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 171-174, 49 S.Ct. 144, 148-150, 73 L.Ed. 243 (1929); Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond & Danville Extension Co., 129 U.S. 643, 662-663, 9 S.Ct. 402, 408-409, 32 L.Ed. 819 (1889).14 This all seems so obvious that it is puzzling that the Court reaches a different res......
-
Olmstead v. United States Green v. Same Innis v. Same, 493
...U. S. 261, 26 L. Ed. 539; Irwin v. Williar, 110 U. S. 499, 510, 4 S. Ct. 160, 28 L. Ed. 225; Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond & Danville Extension Co., 129 U. S. 643, 9 S. Ct. 402, 32 L. Ed. 819; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 396, 411, 9 S. Ct. 553, 32 L. Ed. 979; Embrey v. Jemison......
-
Gatton v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.
... ... [63 N.W. 592] ... consent was given to an extension of the foreign slave trade ... for twenty years. Fiske, 263, 264. The ... Doane , 12 Wall. 342, 20 L.Ed. 439; Thomas v. City of ... Richmond , 12 Wall. 349; Woodstock Iron Co. v ... Richmond & D. Extension Co. , ... ...
-
Wiggins Ferry Company, And Respondent v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, And Respondent
...v. Railroad, 118 U.S. 290; Board v. Railroad, 50 Ind. 85; Railroad v. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 307; Gibbs v. Gas Co., 130 U.S. 397; Iron Co. v. Extension Co., 129 U.S. 643. (9) It the legal right and duty of the railroad company to make use of the bridge as a means of crossing the river. Ferry v. ......