Johnson v. North Baltimore Bottle Glass Co.
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Cowley district court; Carroll L. Swarts, judge. STATEMENT. This was an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. The plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs below and will be referred to as plaintiffs here. They are engaged in the manufacture of soda-water at Winfield, Kan. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles at Terre Haute, Ind.
Read the full summary
Error from Cowley district court; Carroll L. Swarts, judge. STATEMENT. This was an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. The plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs below and will be referred to as plaintiffs here. They are engaged in the manufacture of soda-water at Winfield, Kan. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles at Terre Haute, Ind. On November 30, 1901, through a traveling salesman of defendant, a contract was made by which plaintiffs purchased from defendant 150 gross of soda-pop bottles and 900 city boxes, like sample, which…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Porter, J.:
It is the contention of plaintiffs that the facts disclosed established, as a matter of law, that two contracts were entered into between the parties; that there was a breach of the first contract causing damage to plaintiffs; that afterward a second contract was made and carried out; and that plaintiffs by entering into the second in no manner waived their right to claim damages for the breach of the original contract. On the other hand it is claimed by defendant that the undisputed facts establish, as a matter of law, that there was but…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McMaster v. . the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Van Winkle & Co. v. WilkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
- Industrial Works v. MitchellMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Redlands Orange Growers' Ass'n v. GormanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Halstead Lumber Co. v. MurphySupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Continental Life Ins. Co. v. SmithNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1936
- Robberson Steel Co. v. HarrellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1949
- Bernhardt v. Federal Terra Cotta Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
- Hjorth v. Albert Lea Machinery Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Stephens v. Weyl-Zuckerman & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.