Avery v. Segura Sugar Co.
Citations
- 111 La. 891
- 35 So. 967
- 1903 La. LEXIS 575
Syllabus
<p>CONTRACT—BREACH—DAMAGES—WAIVER.</p> <p>1. The defendant company furnished money and supplies to the plaintiff to cultivate and make his crop of sugar and molasses, retaining a privilege and pledge upon the same. It also entered into a cane planter’s contract with him. The contract provided that in the event of certain mishaps to the defendant the contract would be null and void. Mishaps did happen, but defendant elected then to keep it in force, and still assured plaintiff it would save his crop. When defendant announced to plaintiff that it had terminated the contract, it was impossible to obtain transportation elsewhere, and a portion of his cane was left standing in the field, and in windrow, and it was lost. It would have been a vain and useless act under the circumstances for plaintiff to have cut and hauled cane to the derrick on plaintiff’s plantation for delivery to defendant, as the contract called for, and he was relieved from doing so. It was the duty of the defendant to have received delivery of the cane at plaintiff’s station. He failed to do so, and is responsible for the loss on the cane left in the field, at the price fixed upon, less the amount to be allowed for expenses of the derrick and loading which was not incurred.</p> <p>2. After defendant ascertained it could not well carry out its contract with plaintiff, it made arrangements with the Caffery Refinery to manufacture plaintiff’s crop on certain conditions and a certain price, and a portion of the crop was sent there and manufactured. That refinery went into the hands of a receiver. The defendant intervened in the proceedings, claiming a vendor’s privilege upon the sugar and molasses, but subsequently it discontinued the intervention, declaring it had been made in error.. Plaintiff himself, reciting the facts, intervened, and claimed a privilege. In so doing he did not waive any rights he had against the defendant, nor adopt as his own the contract made by defendant with the Caffery Refine
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting argument that claims were directed to an improvement to technology where specification described only conventional computer and network components to implement the inventions
- rejecting the patentability of claimed steps that were “just the barebones descriptions of a result,” with “no description of any mechanism by which that result [was] obtained.”
- “The problem, however, is that the idea of a chat session separate from the original website is not an invention; it is a disembodied concept. The asserted claims of the [challenged] patent recite the concept, but not the way to implement it.”
- “The problem, however, is that the idea of a chat session separate from the original website is not an invention; it is a disembodied concept. The asserted claims of the [challenged] patent recite the concept, but not the way to implement it.”’
- “The problem, however, is that the idea of a chat session separate from the original website is not an invention; it is a disembodied concept. The asserted claims of the [challenged] patent recite the concept, but not the way to implement it.”’
- “The problem, however, is that the idea of a chat session separate from the original website is not an invention; it is a disembodied concept. The asserted claims of the [challenged] patent recite the concept, but not the way to implement it.””
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nicholls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.