Williams S. S. Co. v. McLeod Lumber Co.

W.D. Washington

Williams S. S. Co. v. McLeod Lumber Co.

296 F. 927, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1792, 1924 A.M.C. 663

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington

DecidedMarch 11, 1924

DocketNo. 8040

StatusPublished

This text of 296 F. 927 (Williams S. S. Co. v. McLeod Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams S. S. Co. v. McLeod Lumber Co., 296 F. 927, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1792, 1924 A.M.C. 663 (W.D. Wash. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

NETERER, District Judge.

While in mercantile contracts time is of the essence (Norrington v. Wright, 115 U. S. 188, 6 Sup. Ct. 12, 29 [928]*928L. Ed. 366), the statement that the vessel would load “about June 2d” and “about June 5th” is a mere representation, and not a warranty (Hawes v. Lawrence et al., 4 N. Y. 345), and while “about” is i comprehensive term, and when used with regard to time may cover a considerable extent (James v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 190, 49 S. W. 401), and has no definite trade meaning (Bennett v. Lingham [D. C.] 31 Fed. 85; Massari v. Forest Lbr. Co. [D. C.] 290 Fed, 470), it does not signify that time is immaterial, but only that the precise date is not warranted (Sanders v. Munson, 74 Fed. 649, 20 C. C. A. 581; Connell Bros. v. H. Diederichsen & Co., 213 Fed. 737, 130 C. C. A. 251).

The libelant may not enlarge the time of the indefinite term “about” by repeated use. The indefinite term “about” was construed by the libelant on May 30th to be “about June 12th,” and was not objected to by the respondent. This construction fixed the time, and June 12th must be held a warranty (The Texandrier, A. M. C. 1923, p. 722), and when the libelant, on June 8th, advised respondent that the vessel would .not be ready to load until June 18th, the respondent thereupon declined the space, and was absolved from the 'charter agreement.

The exceptions to the amended libel are sustained.

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

NETERER, District Judge.

While in mercantile contracts time is of the essence (Norrington v. Wright, 115 U. S. 188, 6 Sup. Ct. 12, 29 [928]*928L. Ed. 366), the statement that the vessel would load “about June 2d” and “about June 5th” is a mere representation, and not a warranty (Hawes v. Lawrence et al., 4 N. Y. 345), and while “about” is i comprehensive term, and when used with regard to time may cover a considerable extent (James v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 190, 49 S. W. 401), and has no definite trade meaning (Bennett v. Lingham [D. C.] 31 Fed. 85; Massari v. Forest Lbr. Co. [D. C.] 290 Fed, 470), it does not signify that time is immaterial, but only that the precise date is not warranted (Sanders v. Munson, 74 Fed. 649, 20 C. C. A. 581; Connell Bros. v. H. Diederichsen & Co., 213 Fed. 737, 130 C. C. A. 251).

The libelant may not enlarge the time of the indefinite term “about” by repeated use. The indefinite term “about” was construed by the libelant on May 30th to be “about June 12th,” and was not objected to by the respondent. This construction fixed the time, and June 12th must be held a warranty (The Texandrier, A. M. C. 1923, p. 722), and when the libelant, on June 8th, advised respondent that the vessel would .not be ready to load until June 18th, the respondent thereupon declined the space, and was absolved from the 'charter agreement.

The exceptions to the amended libel are sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 F. 927, 1924 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1792, 1924 A.M.C. 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-s-s-co-v-mcleod-lumber-co-wawd-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack