The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 40
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
272 FEDERAL REPOBTER
fendant, * * * for the fulfillment of its part of the said contracts,
but all without avail." These allegations of the petition make it clear
that no error was committed in overruling the exception.
 Defendant moved for a directed verdict in its favor. The
grounds of the motion were in substance the same as the affirmative de-
fenses pleaded, of causes beyond defendant's control and the action of
the rood Administration. While it might have been true that weather
conditions delayed the manufacture of sugar and rendered the yield
less than it would have been, yet the fact remains that the defendant
during the month of November manufactured enough sugar to fill its
November contracts with plaintiff and all its other customers. Besides,
it is quite apparent from the evidence that it was with great hesitation
and reluctance that defendant requested plaintiff to cancel the contracts.
It was for the jury to decide whether the greenness of the cane and
weather conditions were the causes which influenced the action taken by
defendant, in view of the advance in price of sugar and the fact tuat
enough of it was manufactured to fill the contracts.
At the time the contracts were entered into the Food Administration
had not undertaken to control the price of the sugar crop of 1919, and
when this was done no attempt was made to cancel the contracts al-
ready made, if indeed, tha' was within the power of the Food Admin-
istration. It is not necessary to decide whether it was or not, or wheth-
er the recent decision by the Supreme Court in United States v. L. Co-
hmn Grocery Co., delivered February 23, 1921, 255 U. S. -, 41 Sup.
Ct. 29S, 65 L. Ed. -, has any effect upon civil suits.
[3, 4] It is further contended that the contracts only contemplated
the sale of sugar manufactured from cane grown by defendant. It
may be, as stated by the District Judge, that defendant was not com-
pelled under its contracts to buy cane and manufacture sugar out of
it; but the evidence shows it did so, and that it was its uniform cus-
tom to do so. The terms of the contracts are broad enough to in-
clude all sugar manufactured by defendant, and it is difficult to see how
they could be modified or varied by defendant's intention only to con-
tract for future dehvery of sugar manufactured from cane grown
upon its plantations. The broker who negotiated the contracts denied
that anything was said upon this subject, and if there had been it would
not be admissible as evidence.
 It is assigned as error that the court admitted evidence as to the
quantity of sugar manufactured at one of defendant's factories out-
side of St. Mary's parish during the month of November. It is insisted
that defendant did not manufacture enough sugar at its factory within
St. Mary's parish during November to fulfill its contracts for that
month. This assignment is not based upon anything in the contracts
themselves, but solely upon the contention that plaintiff in its petition
only alleged that it was entitled to the sugar manufactured in St. Mary's
Parish. We do not so construe the petition. It is true that it alleges
defendant's place of business and domicile were in St. Mary's parish,
but the contracts are pleaded in other paragraphs, and made a part of
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/62/: accessed February 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.