Channon-Emery Stove Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

Channon-Emery Stove Co. v. United States

61 Ct. Cl. 37, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 433, 1925 WL 2713

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 1, 1925

DocketNo. C-1052

StatusPublished

This text of 61 Ct. Cl. 37 (Channon-Emery Stove Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Channon-Emery Stove Co. v. United States, 61 Ct. Cl. 37, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 433, 1925 WL 2713 (cc 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[39]*39MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The plaintiff seeks to recover for failure of the defendant to accept certain additional ranges. It appears that there was a contract between the parties whereby the plaintiff was to deliver 185 steel ranges to the Government. It was while this contract was in process of performance that the agent of the Government called upon plaintiff to know the price at which it could furnish some additional ranges. While plaintiff stated the price, it does not appear that the matter was ever concluded by an order for the ranges. They were not ordered; they were not shipped or delivered. There was no agreement between the parties that they should be shipped.

Graham, Judge,

took' no part in the decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[39]*39MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The plaintiff seeks to recover for failure of the defendant to accept certain additional ranges. It appears that there was a contract between the parties whereby the plaintiff was to deliver 185 steel ranges to the Government. It was while this contract was in process of performance that the agent of the Government called upon plaintiff to know the price at which it could furnish some additional ranges. While plaintiff stated the price, it does not appear that the matter was ever concluded by an order for the ranges. They were not ordered; they were not shipped or delivered. There was no agreement between the parties that they should be shipped.

Graham, Judge,

took' no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Ct. Cl. 37, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 433, 1925 WL 2713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/channon-emery-stove-co-v-united-states-cc-1925.