Thomas-Huycke-Martin Co. v. Gray
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Scott Circuit Court; Daniel Hon, Judge; I. The contract is void for want of mutuality. Under it appellants agree to pay a certain price for lumber of a certain grade, but nowhere are appellees under any obligation to saw or furnish any particular quantity. They were left free to shut down at any time, or, if opportunity was presented to them after moving the mill to the second location, to sell at an increased price.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scott Circuit Court; Daniel Hon, Judge; I. The contract is void for want of mutuality. Under it appellants agree to pay a certain price for lumber of a certain grade, but nowhere are appellees under any obligation to saw or furnish any particular quantity. They were left free to shut down at any time, or, if opportunity was presented to them after moving the mill to the second location, to sell at an increased price. Nothing in the contract would prevent, x Ark. 391, 415; 59 Kan. 601; 60 Kan. 424; 58 Mich. 574; 93 Mich. 491; 157 111. 339; 36 La. Ann. 35; 13 O. St. 84; 43 Minn. 11.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCuuloch, C. J.
Plaintiffs, Gray & Sons, were owners of a portable saw mill, and were engaged in manufacturing an-d selling lumber. The Thomas-Huycke-Martin Company was dealing in lumber, and those parties, plaintiffs and defendant, entered into a written contract for the sale of the output of the mill, the contract (omitting caption) being as follows:
“The Thomas-Huycke-Martin Company, parties of the first part, agree to take from Gray & Sons the mill cut from the mill belonging to the parties of the second part located on Jones’s Creek, Scott County, Arkansas. The Thomas-Huycke-Martin Company, parties of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lewis v. Atlas Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Davie v. Lumberman's Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Minneapolis Mill Co. v. GoodnowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Bangor Furnace Co. v. MagillIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- El Dorado Ice & Planing Mill Co. v. KinardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Alf Bennett Lumber Co. v. Walnut Lake Cypress Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Patty v. BerrymanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Gregg v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Wilkes v. StacySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.