Harrison v. Fortlage
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE, UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. This was an action of assumpsit, brought April 22, 1890, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by Hermann Fortlage and others, aliens, partners under the name of A. Tesdorpf & Company, against Charles O. Harrison and others, citizens of Pennsylvania, partners under the name of Harrison, Frazier & Company, upon a contract in writing for the…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE, UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. This was an action of assumpsit, brought April 22, 1890, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by Hermann Fortlage and others, aliens, partners under the name of A. Tesdorpf & Company, against Charles O. Harrison and others, citizens of Pennsylvania, partners under the name of Harrison, Frazier & Company, upon a contract in writing for the purchase of 2500 tons of sugar. The facts admitted or proved at the trial were as follows: The plaintiffs’ agent signed,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gray
The single question is whether the contract between the parties required all the sugar to be brought to Philadelphia in the Empress of' India, upon which it was originally shipped. This depends upon the meaning of the terms of the writing in which the parties must be assumed to have embodied and expressed their whole intention, and to have defined all the conditions of the contract. The court is not at liberty, either to disregard words used by the parties, descriptive of the subject matter, or of any material incident, or to insert words which the parties have not made use of. Norrington v.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Seitz v. Brewers' Refrigerating MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Norrington v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- The Maggie HammondSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Cleveland Rolling Mill v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Filley v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by88 opinions
- Breece Veneer and Panel Company v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1956
- Crossman v. American InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Focus Investment Associates, Inc. v. American Title Insurance Company, Focus Investment Associates, Inc. v. American Title Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Snethen v. Oklahoma State Union of the Farmers Educational & Cooperative UnionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
- Union Selling Co. v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.