United Clay Products Co. v. Linder

D.C. Circuit

United Clay Products Co. v. Linder

119 F.2d 456, 73 App. D.C. 389, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3756

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 7, 1941

DocketNo. 7633

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 119 F.2d 456 (United Clay Products Co. v. Linder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United Clay Products Co. v. Linder, 119 F.2d 456, 73 App. D.C. 389, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3756 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

Appellee guaranteed, in writing, payment for materials which appellant sold to Huff. Huff defaulted, and appellant sued on the guaranty. Appellee defended on the ground that appellant failed to give prompt notice of Huff’s default. There was evidence that appellant agreed orally to give prompt notice,¹ *broke this agreement, and thereby injured appellee. There was also contrary evidence. The case was heard without a jury. The court made a “Trial Finding for Defendant” (appellee), without more, and entered judgment accordingly.

We must assume that the court found all the disputed facts, including the making of the oral agreement, in appellee’s favor. As appellant does not question the validity of the oral agreement, its validity is not before us. Accordingly the agreement, to the extent of the injury which its breach inflicted on appellee, is a defense here. Cases like Kaufman v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.,² in which there was no agreement to give notice, are not in point. But appellee received notice of Huff’s default in time to withhold, and he withheld accordingly, $68.70 which he would otherwise have paid to Huff. To this extent, as he concedes, he was not injured by lack of notice and is liable on his guaranty. _ The judgment should be modified accordingly. Judgment modified.

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

EDGERTON, Associate Justice.

Appellee guaranteed, in writing, payment for materials which appellant sold to Huff. Huff defaulted, and appellant sued on the guaranty. Appellee defended on the ground that appellant failed to give prompt notice of Huff’s default. There was evidence that appellant agreed orally to give prompt notice,¹ *broke this agreement, and thereby injured appellee. There was also contrary evidence. The case was heard without a jury. The court made a “Trial Finding for Defendant” (appellee), without more, and entered judgment accordingly.

We must assume that the court found all the disputed facts, including the making of the oral agreement, in appellee’s favor. As appellant does not question the validity of the oral agreement, its validity is not before us. Accordingly the agreement, to the extent of the injury which its breach inflicted on appellee, is a defense here. Cases like Kaufman v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.,² in which there was no agreement to give notice, are not in point. But appellee received notice of Huff’s default in time to withhold, and he withheld accordingly, $68.70 which he would otherwise have paid to Huff. To this extent, as he concedes, he was not injured by lack of notice and is liable on his guaranty. _ The judgment should be modified accordingly. Judgment modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 F.2d 456, 73 App. D.C. 389, 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 3756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-clay-products-co-v-linder-cadc-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack