Howard & Rice v. Thompson Lumber Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 68 — ACTION ON CONTRACT appeal prom bell circuit court. The lower court erred to the prejudice of the appellants, 1. In not letting the jury decide as a fact whether appellants were damaged by reason of having timber hauled from December 20, 1895, to January 15, 1896. 2. In not- letting the jury decide as a fact whether appellees declared a forfeiture or waived the right to declare a forfeiture on account of the failure of the appellants to haul the quantity of timber…
Read the full summary
Case 68 — ACTION ON CONTRACT appeal prom bell circuit court. The lower court erred to the prejudice of the appellants, 1. In not letting the jury decide as a fact whether appellants were damaged by reason of having timber hauled from December 20, 1895, to January 15, 1896. 2. In not- letting the jury decide as a fact whether appellees declared a forfeiture or waived the right to declare a forfeiture on account of the failure of the appellants to haul the quantity of timber each .month or period as called for in the contract. 3. In not allowing the jury to say whether appellants were damaged…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BURNAM
delivered the opinion of the court.
On tbe tth day of December, 1895, appellants agreed with appellee that, in consideration of $3.25 per thousand feet, they would haul and deliver at its mill yard all of the poplar saw logs to be cut on a tract of land owned by appellee. The work was to begin on or before December 20th, and appellants were to deliver as much as 150,000 feet by the 1st day of March, 1895, and in each succeeding month thereafter as much as 120,000 feet, until all the logs were hauled and delivered; the entire job to be finished not later than the 15th day of August,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Phillips & Colby Construction Co. v. SeymourSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Henderson Bridge Co. v. O'Connor & McCullochCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1889
3Cited by4 opinions
- Robberson Steel Co. v. HarrellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1949
- Newhall Land Farming Co. v. BurnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Stephens v. Weyl-Zuckerman & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
- Banducci v. Frank T. Hickey, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1949