Legal Opinion

Wickham & Burton Coal Co. v. Minnesota Coal Co.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided May 20, 1925No. 3470PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LINDLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff (defendant in error) brought suit and recovered against defendant (plaintiff in error) for damages because of breach of contract to deliver coal between May 8, 1920, and March, 1921. This contract, dated May 8, 1920, provided that defendant would bill to plaintiff 55 cars of coal per month begin*874ning. with May, 1920, f. o. b. the mine of the Harrisburg Fuel Company at Dorrisville, 111., at $3.25 per ton, subject to revision in case of change in wage scale, and contained a provision that, “if the seller be prevented by the act of any third person from making…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Walker v. TuckerIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
  2. Summers v. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Nicol v. FitchMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Kitzinger v. SanbornIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
  5. Haff v. PillingU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1905

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Anthony P. Miller, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
  2. Wilson & Co. v. Fremont Cake & Meal Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1950
  3. (PC) Brown v. ReillyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API