Cameron Mill & Elevator Co. v. Chas. F. Orthwein's Sons

Citations

• 120 F. 463
• 56 C.C.A. 613
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4496

Syllabus

<p>1. Contracts — Issue as to Construction — Admission on Parol Evidence.</p> <p>In an action on a contract embodied in writings, where there is a controversy as to whether certain words used are ambiguous and unintelligible, such construction is a matter to be determined by the court as one of law, and, if it determines that the words are not ambiguous, parol evidence is not admissible to show the understanding of either party as to their meaning, nor to vary or contradict them, although the court may, on the issue as to ambiguity, hear parol evidence to throw light upon the collateral facts and circumstances; but when the court admits testimony of a contradictory character as to the meaning of the words, in view of the circumstances under which they were used, the question becomes one for the jury, and the burden rests upon the plaintiff to establish his contention as to their meaning by a preponderance of evidence.</p> <p>2. Same — Delivery under Contract of Sale — Question for Jury.</p> <p>Plaintiffs contracted with defendant verbally, at Ft. Worth, Tex., for the purchase of a quantity of wheat. Each party wrote a letter to the other, confirmatory of the oral contract, and each stating the price and quantity, and that the wheat was to be “delivered Galveston.” Plaintiff’s letter stated, in addition, that the purchase was by Galveston weight and grades, and contained direction for shipment from Ft. Worth, where the wheat was then stored. Defendant shipped the wheat, and plaintiffs paid for the same on presentation of the bill of lading. The wheat arrived at Galveston, and, while still in the cars, was damaged by the great storm. Plaintiffs sued for damages, alleging that the contract required the wheat to be delivered into the elevator at Galveston, and that title had not passed at the time of the damage. Held, that the words in the letters, “delivered Galveston,” without other language explanatory, could not be construed, as matter of law, to require delivery in