Randall v. Johnson
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dille v. Longwell (Iowa 1920)
- Bush v. Merrill (Tex. App. 1913)
- Ewell v. Landing (Md. 1963)
- Stolkin v. Abrams (Ind. Ct. App. 1938)
- American Metal Products Co. v. A. Geo. Schultz Co. (Wis. 1936)
- Ballas v. Lake Weir Light & Water Co. (Fla. 1930)
- Washington National Investment Co. v. Lloyd (Wash. 1929)
- Wallace v. Carlin (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)
- Valley Fruit Co. v. Swash (Wash. 1925)
- Pegg v. Olson (Wyo. 1924)
- Daily v. Quinn (Ala. 1922)
- Allen v. Estate of Allen (Ill. App. Ct. 1920)
- Rosenheim v. Howze (Cal. 1918)
- Piaggio v. Somerville (Miss. 1918)
- Greenstreet v. Cheatum (Kan. 1916)
- Hughes v. McEwen (Miss. 1916)
- Goldsberry v. Thomas (Mo. Ct. App. 1914)
- Voight v. Voight (Neb. 1914)
- Seattle Automobile Co. v. Stimson (Wash. 1912)
- Rosenberg v. F. J. Lewis Manufacturing Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1912)
- Hood v. Hampton Plains Exploration Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada 1901)
- Noland v. Bull (Or. 1893)
- Whiting v. Gray (Fla. 1891)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The true interpretation of the contract sued on is, that the “ first return trip of the schooner ‘ Mary Bloom,’ ” — which it was assumed would certainly occur within a few months in regular course, — was fixed by the parties as the date from which the ninety days after which the money was to be paid were to be computed; and that as the schooner was lost at sea, and could never return as contemplated, the money promised became payable ninety days after the expiration of the period of time usualty required for a return trip of the schooner. Hicks v. Shouse, 17 B. Mon. 483; Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Mo. 124; Williston v. Perkins, 51 Cal. 554; Nunez v. Dautel, 19 Wall. 560. It would be “a mockery of justice ” to hold that, because the schooner was lost at sea, and, therefore, had not made her first return trip, the appellee lost his debt.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.