Norrington v. Wright
Supreme Court of the United States
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OE PENNSYLVANIA. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Arthur Nor-' rington, a citizen of Great Britain, trading under the name of A..Norrington & Go., against James A. Wright and others, citizens of Pennsylvania, trading under the name of Peter Wright & Sons, upon the following contract: “ Philadelphia, January 19, 1880. Sold to - Messrs.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OE PENNSYLVANIA. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Arthur Nor-' rington, a citizen of Great Britain, trading under the name of A..Norrington & Go., against James A. Wright and others, citizens of Pennsylvania, trading under the name of Peter Wright & Sons, upon the following contract: “ Philadelphia, January 19, 1880. Sold to - Messrs. Peter Wright & Sons, for account of A'. Norrington & Co., London: Five thousand (5,000) tons old T iron rails, for shipment from . a European port or ports, at. the rate of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gray
After stating the facts in the language reported above, he continued :
In the contracts of merchants, time is of the essence. The time of shipment is the usual and convenient means of fixing the probable time of arrival, with a view of providing funds to pay for the goods', or of fulfilling contracts with third persons. A statement descriptive of the subject-matter, or of some material incident, such as the time or place of shipment, is ordinarily to be regarded as a warranty, in the sense in which that term is used in insurance and maritime law, that is to say, a condition precedent, upon the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brawley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Lowber v. BangsSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Lyon v. BertramSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- Davison v. Von LingenSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Hill v. . BlakeNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
3Cited by264 opinions
- New York Life Insurance v. ViglasSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Pine River Logging Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Guerini Stone Co. v. P. J. Carlin Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Kunglig Jarnvagsstyrelsen v. Dexter & Carpenter, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1929
- Harrison v. FortlageSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
259 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.