Scully v. Corn Products Refining Co.

Seventh Circuit

Scully v. Corn Products Refining Co.

205 F. 476, 123 C.C.A. 544, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1467

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1913

DocketNo. 1,958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 205 F. 476 (Scully v. Corn Products Refining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scully v. Corn Products Refining Co., 205 F. 476, 123 C.C.A. 544, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1467 (7th Cir. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

ANDERSON, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Plaintiffs have assigned numerous errors, but no assignment raising any question of fact is pressed here. Indeed, counsel for plaintiffs in their brief say:

“There is no real conflict in the evidence. The material facts are all conceded, and the question here is one of law.”

Not only is the evidence sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court; it conclusively establishes them. Neither is there any available question of law raised upon this record. One of the material averments of the declaration is that plaintiffs “purchased exclusively from the defendant all the glucose and grape sugar required by them in the conduct of their business during the year 1908,” and “fully complied with the terms of said written proposition.” The court found that plaintiffs did not comply with the terms of the contract, and that what they claimed to be compliance was a mere subterfuge. The court, having properly found that plaintiffs had failed to perform the contract on their part, was bound to follow that finding with a judgment for defendant.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

ANDERSON, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Plaintiffs have assigned numerous errors, but no assignment raising any question of fact is pressed here. Indeed, counsel for plaintiffs in their brief say:

“There is no real conflict in the evidence. The material facts are all conceded, and the question here is one of law.”

Not only is the evidence sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court; it conclusively establishes them. Neither is there any available question of law raised upon this record. One of the material averments of the declaration is that plaintiffs “purchased exclusively from the defendant all the glucose and grape sugar required by them in the conduct of their business during the year 1908,” and “fully complied with the terms of said written proposition.” The court found that plaintiffs did not comply with the terms of the contract, and that what they claimed to be compliance was a mere subterfuge. The court, having properly found that plaintiffs had failed to perform the contract on their part, was bound to follow that finding with a judgment for defendant.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 F. 476, 123 C.C.A. 544, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scully-v-corn-products-refining-co-ca7-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack