Wasson v. O'Gara Coal Co.

Seventh Circuit

Wasson v. O'Gara Coal Co.

199 F. 770, 118 C.C.A. 208, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1765

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 1912

DocketNo. 1,885

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 F. 770 (Wasson v. O'Gara Coal 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

Wasson v. O'Gara Coal Co., 199 F. 770, 118 C.C.A. 208, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1765 (7th Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wasson had a contract with the Morris Coal Company for the sale and delivery to him of certain amounts of coal. O’Gara obtained from the Morris Company an option to purchase its mine. In the option there was a provision that existing contracts between the Morris Company and its customers should be filled by O’Gara or his assigns. O’Gara elected to purchase for the O’Gara Coal Company. The deed to the O’Gara Company contained no assumption of the Wasson contract, nor did the O’Gara Company execute any separate instrument of assumption.

Wasson’s action being for damages on account of the O’Gara Company’s refusal to carry out the Morris Company’s contract, the burden of proving the assumption was on him. The option was purely executory, and any terms not embodied in the final transaction must be deemed waived. To show that his contract was included Wasson proved that his contract, with a written assignment indorsed thereon by the Morris Company to the O’Gara Company, was left by the Morris Company together with the deed, abstracts, and other contracts in the office of the attorney who acted for the O’Gara Company at the time the transaction was closed. The trial court treated this as prima facie evidence of an assumption. Was-son contends that it was irrebuttable. Inasmuch as the Wasson contract may have been among the other papers by oversight or fraud, the court properly permitted the O’Gara Company to prove that it explicitly rejected the Wasson contract and notified the Morris Company that the purchase would not be made if the Wasson contract was included. On Wasson’s behalf evidence in rebuttal of the O’Gara Company’s position was introduced; and the dispute of fact was submitted to the jury under instructions to which no exceptions were taken.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.. ■

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

PER CURIAM.

Wasson had a contract with the Morris Coal Company for the sale and delivery to him of certain amounts of coal. O’Gara obtained from the Morris Company an option to purchase its mine. In the option there was a provision that existing contracts between the Morris Company and its customers should be filled by O’Gara or his assigns. O’Gara elected to purchase for the O’Gara Coal Company. The deed to the O’Gara Company contained no assumption of the Wasson contract, nor did the O’Gara Company execute any separate instrument of assumption.

Wasson’s action being for damages on account of the O’Gara Company’s refusal to carry out the Morris Company’s contract, the burden of proving the assumption was on him. The option was purely executory, and any terms not embodied in the final transaction must be deemed waived. To show that his contract was included Wasson proved that his contract, with a written assignment indorsed thereon by the Morris Company to the O’Gara Company, was left by the Morris Company together with the deed, abstracts, and other contracts in the office of the attorney who acted for the O’Gara Company at the time the transaction was closed. The trial court treated this as prima facie evidence of an assumption. Was-son contends that it was irrebuttable. Inasmuch as the Wasson contract may have been among the other papers by oversight or fraud, the court properly permitted the O’Gara Company to prove that it explicitly rejected the Wasson contract and notified the Morris Company that the purchase would not be made if the Wasson contract was included. On Wasson’s behalf evidence in rebuttal of the O’Gara Company’s position was introduced; and the dispute of fact was submitted to the jury under instructions to which no exceptions were taken.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 F. 770, 118 C.C.A. 208, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasson-v-ogara-coal-co-ca7-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack