Quigley v. Spencer Stone Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. The appellants’ bill alleged that on September 13, 1899, they entered into a written contract with the receivers of the Kansas City, Pittsburgh & Gulf Railroad Company, wherein they agreed to crush and load upon cars for the receivers 100,000 cubic yards of stone ballast of a specified grade “at the rate of 400 cubic yards per day until the completion of this contract,” for the price of 50 cents…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana. The appellants’ bill alleged that on September 13, 1899, they entered into a written contract with the receivers of the Kansas City, Pittsburgh & Gulf Railroad Company, wherein they agreed to crush and load upon cars for the receivers 100,000 cubic yards of stone ballast of a specified grade “at the rate of 400 cubic yards per day until the completion of this contract,” for the price of 50 cents (reduced on October 21, 1899, to forty-eight cents) per cubic yard, and wherein the receivers agreed to furnish the…
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, Circuit Judge
In sustaining the partial demurrer and in entering a decree upon the master’s report, the court adopted appellees’ contention that the contract between appellants and the receivers was void for lack of mutuality because the receivers were not bound to take and pay for the 100,000 cubic yards of stone ballast.
*89The intention of the parties; as it is fairly and faithfully gathered from the entire instrument, is the pole star of interpretation. The receivers exacted of appellants a covenant to crush and put on the receivers’ cars 100,000 cubic yards of ballast “at the rate of 400 cubic yards per…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Keller v. AshfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- National Bank v. Grand LodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Willard v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Black v. WoodrowCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1874
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Evans, Coleman & Evans, Ltd. v. PistorinoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923