Central Electric Co. v. Sprague Electric Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The defendant in error (plaintiff below) brought its action at law in assumpsit to recover of the plaintiff in error (defendant below) for certain goods sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The defendant in error (plaintiff below) brought its action at law in assumpsit to recover of the plaintiff in error (defendant below) for certain goods sold and delivered. To this there was a plea of the general issue, with notice of set-off to the effect that, prior to the organization of the defendant in error, the plaintiff in error was accustomed to purchase goods from the Interior Conduit & Insulation Company, which company had agreed to take back and credit upon its account, at. the cost price,…
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, Circuit Judge
It is an undoubted general principle that, to sustain an action at law upon a contract, privity of contract is necessary (National Bank v. Grand Lodge, 98 U. S. 123, 25 L. Ed. 75), and an indirect interest in the performance of an undertaking does not constitute such privity (Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610, 10 Sup. Ct. 494, 33 L. Ed. 667). There are, however, exceptions to the rule — as where the plaintiff is the sole beneficiary of the promise, or where assets have been acquired by the promisor which in equity belong to another, or where the promise is to pay the plaintiff. There are other…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Keller v. AshfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Willard v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Union Mutual Life Insurance v. HanfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- National Bank v. Grand LodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Dean v. WalkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Federal Surety Co. v. Minneapolis Steel & MacHinery Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. MaxwellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1937
- Duvall-Percival Trust Co. v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
- Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. v. WahlgrenDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1932
- Gibson v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1916
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.