Gloster Oil Works v. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of, first district, Iliuds county. Hon. David M. Miller, Judge. The Gloster Oil Works, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the Buckeye Cotton Oil Company, the appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant’s favor the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of, first district, Iliuds county. Hon. David M. Miller, Judge. The Gloster Oil Works, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the Buckeye Cotton Oil Company, the appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment in defendant’s favor the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Section 26 of the act (Laws 1898, pp. 14, 15) has no application to a seller of cotton seed; it applies alone to a buyer of cotton seed. The great bulk of the agricultural population of Mississippi are engaged in the production of cotton and…
1Opinion of the CourtWhiteield, C. J.
The trouble with appellant’s case is its utter collapse on the facts. The action is one to recover damages for the breach of a contract providing for the sale of one thousand tons of good, sound cotton seed only, at $16.75 per ton, to be delivered between October, 1902, and April, 1903. Pour hundred and fifty-six tons were shipped and paid for up to November 26, 1902, and $3,168.60 is the amount of damages alleged to have been sustained by the Gloster Oil Works by reason of the change in the market price and breach of the contract referred to. The defendant (appellee), on November 26, 1902,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Union Oil Co. v. MarreroSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1900