Cleveland Rolling Mill v. Rhodes
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OE ILLINOIS. This was an action brought by Rhodes and Bradley, co-partners, and citizens of Chicago in the State of Illinois, against the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company, a corporation of the State of Ohio, upon the following agreement in writing, signed by both parties: “This agreement, made this sixteenth .day of February, 1880, by and between Rhodes & Bradley, of Chicago, 111., and the Cleveland…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OE ILLINOIS. This was an action brought by Rhodes and Bradley, co-partners, and citizens of Chicago in the State of Illinois, against the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company, a corporation of the State of Ohio, upon the following agreement in writing, signed by both parties: “This agreement, made this sixteenth .day of February, 1880, by and between Rhodes & Bradley, of Chicago, 111., and the Cleveland Rolling. Mill Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, witnesseth: That said Rhodes & Bradley have sold‘to the said Cleveland Rolling Mill.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gray
The original defendant duly pleaded, and has earnestly argued, that the plaintiffs did not perform their contract, in respect either to the nature of the thing furnished, or to its quantity, or to the time of delivery. The principal objections, each of which would require consideration if the decision of the case depended upon it, are as follows:
As to the nature of the thing: That the amounts of ore frpm each of the four mines named, delivered at the furnace and there manufactured into pig iron, differed from the amounts contracted for, the ores from three of the mines being respectively 20…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Norrington v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Dingley v. OlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Fort Scott v. HickmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Filley v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Allen v. St. Louis BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by68 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Stanley v. SchwalbySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Thornton v. CarterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
- Harrison v. FortlageSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.