Canonsburg Iron Co. v. McKeever
Canonsburg Iron Co. v. McKeever
Opinion of the Court
This case is all wrong, and must be reversed. The following seems to be the contract under which the parties contestant operated:
“ Canonsburg, Pa., November 8, 1882.
“Canonsburg Iron Co., Limited, Canonsburg, Pa.: We will agree to supply you with what coal you require for your mill for three years from November 1, 1882, at the following prices, delivered at your works; you to build the necessary bridge, make and keep the road in good condition during this contract: Forked coal, $4.10 per 100 bushels; run of mines, $3.30 per 100 bushels ; slack, $1.50 per 100 bushels. Payment to be made, in cash, on or before the fifth of each month’s delivery. This price is based on the three and a half cent mining rate, and, should the same be advanced at any time durihg this contract, the price of coal will be correspondingly advanced ; that is to say, if the mining in the Pittsburg district should advance half a cent, our price to you will then be as follows: Forked coal, $4.85 per hundred bushels; run of mines, $3.95 per hundred bushels; slack, $2.00. We will use our best
From this it is obvious that no limit was, by the contract, put upon the discretion of the defendants as to the amount of coal they were to use in the mill. It might be much, little, or none at all. What coal was necessary for consumption in their works they must take from the plaintiffs. This is all they were bound to do, and all the plaintiffs were bound to furnish them, and it was of no consequence whether the falling off in that consumption was occasioned by the contraction of their business, or- by the introduction of gas. In either case, less coal was necessary for the defendant’s manufactory, and they were not obliged to pay for what they did not require.
The judgment is reversed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 14 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- In an action on the case for damages for breach of written contract, the evidence was to the following effect: A coal company offered in writing to furnish an iron company with what coal they would require for their works for three years, at prices named. It was stipulated that the coal company should not be held in damages for miner’s strikes, and the iron company was not to be required to receive coal when their works were out of operation. The offer was accepted. Subsequently the iron company introduced natural gas into their works and almost entirely discontinued the use of coal. Held, that there could be no recovery of damages for failure to take coal, in place of natural gas, for the operations of the works. Query whether, in such case, the defendant would be allowed to give parol evidence that a prior offer was made, on the same day, requiring the iron company to take sufficient coal to operate Iheir mill, that this was rejected for the reason that they did not intend to bind’ themselves to take any quantity of coal but only what they would need, of which they were to be the judges; that the agreement in suit was then drawn up with the intention of expressing this understanding, and was executed; and that, if it had not been for the modification, it would not have been executed by the iron company.