Eufaula Cotton Oil Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

Eufaula Cotton Oil Co. v. United States

81 Ct. Cl. 469, 1935 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 259, 1935 WL 2275

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedApril 16, 1935

DocketNo. 17362

StatusPublished

This text of 81 Ct. Cl. 469 (Eufaula Cotton Oil 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

Eufaula Cotton Oil Co. v. United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 469, 1935 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 259, 1935 WL 2275 (cc 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR Cueiam :

This case is submitted under a stipulation filed January 20, 1933, in the case of the Rose City Cotton Oil Mills v. United States, No. 17341 Congressional, by which it is [470]*470agreed that tbe general findings and .conclusions of law made by the court in the case of Farmers & Ginners Oil Co. v. United States, 76 C. Cls. 204, are accepted by both parties hereto as applicable to and controlling- all other cotton linter cases pending in the Court of Claims. Among other things contained in the findings made by the court in the case last above cited is a statement that the agents of the United States undertook to and did purchase from the plaintiff therein all linters produced during the period ending July 31, 1919, and the opinion recites that the case was in its material features the same as that of Hazelhurst Oil Mill Co. v. United States, 70 C. Cls. 334, in which the court found and held in effect that the contract “covered the purchase of all linters then in possession of plaintiff and all linters to be produced by it during the season ending July 31, 1919.” Since the execution of the stipulation above referred to and on March 4, 1935, an agreed statement of additional facts has been filed by the parties from which it appears that on December 31, 1918, when the contract made in the case now before the court was canceled, the plaintiff had manufactured and delivered to defendant a quantity of linters in excess of the estimated amount which had been stated in the contract and had been paid therefor,

It is now contended on behalf of defendant that as this estimated amount had been produced and paid for there was no breach of the contract by reason of the cancellation thereof on the part of the defendant and its refusal to pay for the linters produced thereafter up to July 31, 1919.

Without determining whether in any event the estimate of the amount to be produced by plaintiff could be a controlling feature with reference to the matter involved, we conclude that under the stipulations and agreements filed by the parties and the decisions in the cases above cited the liability of defendant is not limited by the estimate above referred to and that under the agreed statement of facts the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for $2,301.33.

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

PeR Cueiam :

This case is submitted under a stipulation filed January 20, 1933, in the case of the Rose City Cotton Oil Mills v. United States, No. 17341 Congressional, by which it is [470]*470agreed that tbe general findings and .conclusions of law made by the court in the case of Farmers & Ginners Oil Co. v. United States, 76 C. Cls. 204, are accepted by both parties hereto as applicable to and controlling- all other cotton linter cases pending in the Court of Claims. Among other things contained in the findings made by the court in the case last above cited is a statement that the agents of the United States undertook to and did purchase from the plaintiff therein all linters produced during the period ending July 31, 1919, and the opinion recites that the case was in its material features the same as that of Hazelhurst Oil Mill Co. v. United States, 70 C. Cls. 334, in which the court found and held in effect that the contract “covered the purchase of all linters then in possession of plaintiff and all linters to be produced by it during the season ending July 31, 1919.” Since the execution of the stipulation above referred to and on March 4, 1935, an agreed statement of additional facts has been filed by the parties from which it appears that on December 31, 1918, when the contract made in the case now before the court was canceled, the plaintiff had manufactured and delivered to defendant a quantity of linters in excess of the estimated amount which had been stated in the contract and had been paid therefor,

It is now contended on behalf of defendant that as this estimated amount had been produced and paid for there was no breach of the contract by reason of the cancellation thereof on the part of the defendant and its refusal to pay for the linters produced thereafter up to July 31, 1919.

Without determining whether in any event the estimate of the amount to be produced by plaintiff could be a controlling feature with reference to the matter involved, we conclude that under the stipulations and agreements filed by the parties and the decisions in the cases above cited the liability of defendant is not limited by the estimate above referred to and that under the agreed statement of facts the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for $2,301.33.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 Ct. Cl. 469, 1935 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 259, 1935 WL 2275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eufaula-cotton-oil-co-v-united-states-cc-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack