Small v. Specht

Third Circuit

Small v. Specht

297 F. 872, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2907

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 1924

DocketNo. 3046

StatusPublished

This text of 297 F. 872 (Small v. Specht) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Small v. Specht, 297 F. 872, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2907 (3d Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.

In consideration of services rendered or to be rendered by the plaintiff in making a sale of coal to the Framerican Industrial Development Corporation, the defendant by letter addressed to the plaintiff made the following promise:

“I agree to pay you 10 cts. per net ton for all coal you sell for me or for any coal I may sell to your people within the next 20 days.”

Although a like suit was brought for similar services, Guionnet v. Specht, 297 Fed. 864, we shall assume that the plaintiff rendered services which brought about the agreement between the Framerican Industrial Development Corporation and the defendant for the sale of 500,000 tons of coal, 297 Fed. 862, and the option between the same parties for the sale of 240.000 tons, Guionnet v. Specht (C. C. A.) 297 Fed. 871. Yet, as we have decided that the agreement was not consummated and therefore did not ripen into a contract of sale, and that the option, though given, was not exercised, it follows that the sales of coal for which alone the plaintiff would be entitled to commissions were never made. The status of the plaintiff’s claim differs in no material respect from that of the plaintiff in Guionnet v. Specht, supra, and therefore the judgment which the District Court entered for the defendant must be affirmed.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge, took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.

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

WOOLLEY, Circuit Judge.

In consideration of services rendered or to be rendered by the plaintiff in making a sale of coal to the Framerican Industrial Development Corporation, the defendant by letter addressed to the plaintiff made the following promise:

“I agree to pay you 10 cts. per net ton for all coal you sell for me or for any coal I may sell to your people within the next 20 days.”

Although a like suit was brought for similar services, Guionnet v. Specht, 297 Fed. 864, we shall assume that the plaintiff rendered services which brought about the agreement between the Framerican Industrial Development Corporation and the defendant for the sale of 500,000 tons of coal, 297 Fed. 862, and the option between the same parties for the sale of 240.000 tons, Guionnet v. Specht (C. C. A.) 297 Fed. 871. Yet, as we have decided that the agreement was not consummated and therefore did not ripen into a contract of sale, and that the option, though given, was not exercised, it follows that the sales of coal for which alone the plaintiff would be entitled to commissions were never made. The status of the plaintiff’s claim differs in no material respect from that of the plaintiff in Guionnet v. Specht, supra, and therefore the judgment which the District Court entered for the defendant must be affirmed.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge, took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 F. 872, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-specht-ca3-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack