Illinois Car & Equipment Co. v. Linstroth Wagon Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The action is in assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error, the Linstroth Wagon Company, for brevity called the “Wagon Company,” against the plaintiff in error, the Illinois Car & Equipment Company, for brevity called the “Car Company,” to recover damages for default in the performance of a contract dated January 21, 1899, by which the Oar Company agreed to furnish the Wagon Company…
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The action is in assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error, the Linstroth Wagon Company, for brevity called the “Wagon Company,” against the plaintiff in error, the Illinois Car & Equipment Company, for brevity called the “Car Company,” to recover damages for default in the performance of a contract dated January 21, 1899, by which the Oar Company agreed to furnish the Wagon Company its season’s supply of merchants’ bar iron, not to exceed 300 tons, at $1.12 rate, one-half extras, f. o. b. mill, less…
1Opinion of the Court
JENKINS, Circuit Judge,
after stating tbe facts as above; delivered the opinion of the court.
The objections urged are mainly technical, and many of them without merit, not justifying extended consideration. We speak to such as are deemed worthy of comment.
Certain impression copies of originals delivered to the Car Company by the Ripleys were offered in evidence in connection with the deposition of one of the Ripleys, being letterpress copies of the contract in question and of the specifications for iron delivered to the Ripleys and forwarded to the Car Company. These were duly proved to be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Noonan v. Caledonia Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Patrick v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- American Paper-Bag Co. v. Van NortwickCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1892
- Cozzens v. Chicago Hydraulic-Press Brick Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by14 opinions
- Imperial Hotels Corporation v. Arthur P. Dore Jay Ambe Corporation and Dore Development Company, Mainstream Capital CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2001
- United States ex rel. John Davis Co. v. Illinois Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1915
- Harrington-Wiard Co. v. Blomstrom Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1911
- City Nat. Bank of Huron, SD v. FullerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
- Cooper Grocery Co. v. StrangeTexas Commission of Appeals · 1929
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.