Ackerman v. Santa Rosa-Vallejo Tanning Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Robert S. Bean, Judge. Action by J. E. Ackerman and Max Brummel, individually and as copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Ackerman & Brummel, and Ackerman & Brummel, a copartnership, against the Santa Rosa-Vallejo Tanning Company. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Second Division of the Northern District of California; Robert S. Bean, Judge. Action by J. E. Ackerman and Max Brummel, individually and as copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Ackerman & Brummel, and Ackerman & Brummel, a copartnership, against the Santa Rosa-Vallejo Tanning Company. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error. This is an action on a contract for purchase and sale of leather backs. The cause was tried without a jury. Findings and conclusions were made in favor of the tanning…
1Opinion of the CourtHunt, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The theory of the plaintiffs in error is that the tanning company refused to comply with the directions of Friedman, made after the second inspection, to ship the leather at once, and that by refusal to carry out such request, or to deliver any other backs until the shipment of 255 backs had heen paid for, it followed that the tanning company broke the contract and became liable for damages for a breach. The argument is that a failure to pay an installment due under the terms of a contract does not avoid the entire contract, or constitute a breach, unless…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Cleveland Rolling Mill v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Cox v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Porter v. the Arrow Head Reservoir Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- San Francisco Bridge Co. v. Dumbarton Land & Improvement Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lander v. Samuel Heller Leather Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Howard & Foster Co. v. CumminsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923