Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-05-05
THE COURT

LuMBiA = qKrERAL TERM, - Ohief Justice
S.r,,rT ,sa ,s Viii sSd dis,
judgment Of Garter, y, ", holding tho Uirtult
soiS Ana dsiISStsd k defence psiSs iht
shingles were sold A. certain price pet thou,
sand and that the bundles, PurportinE 20 con
n vHa nroVsd that IA Maine, whence the
goods were shipped 10 be delivered ~ WAah;,
Ingtop, IL was the custom thA, four bunoies o.
,,SiG.sS % "a fss S oehst e Son had BEN
made BY The parties on the basis 81 this custom.
| The SQUIRT below pseided that the custom
Inv we're eutitied 10 20 CONSIDER II. where
upon an appeal wa. a ade 70 this Ooutt. Brad
| Icy for appellant, stanton for hppellce. -
| : Nj. Bradley contended that the custom OF
Msine was not operative 10 Washington.
mr., Stanton argued that the customs under
which the eonttaet wa. made is uniyeIsal IN
defendant In This transactions.
Chief Justice Cartier announced the opin'
Ion OF the court 10 substance ~ follows;
ought 10 be sfnrmed ia this case, Eauiisb y
NOBODY can hesitate that the jury below dii
right In the disposition Of the oaGe.
Tho general aspect Of the testimony 10 that
the deie ndAnt ia this suit during the war On.
tered into correspondence with the plaintiff.
lumbermAn OF Maine, with Ito view to the
the reSt cedar and spruce shlnelsst that the
progress OF the contract rested In ooffeHpond-
enoe, for II does not appear that the parties
eorrs.pondsncs bslSssn The defendant here
and the plaintlR IN Maine. Dprins the Inter
course Of the parties seven orders wete made
and responded 70, and the orders IN substance
were, after an inquiry a. TO what could be
lons, that the plaintiff would sell 10 the de-
PENDANT this lumber and shingles. This was
fl Ss fsom he v:iSsss o. tRei; SoSSsspcsa
The order, we're allsd, and there /. proof
s Us % Sss name sS ne ~ tS
eonslGneci and settled on that basis, for one
OF 1.-THE carGoes hayi1s beeu wrecked, leaving
"d,nt ssnt to 1Se pIai6tir 70 H hsSs /, pascd
to the credit OF the former 10 their deillnga,
and thla transactions was recognized BY both
PARTIES and g u We were to TAKE We Inter =;
their contrast the result would be that tho
oonttAet was oonsummated In Maine, and that
the tine the vendor had delivsIeS 90 the bot
livery to the vendee here. 50 far the law IL
not concerned In the Interpretation o fthla con.
tract, fot this = the intefptsiaiion which the
tween them, as appears 70 US The terms
4" deliver 10 the correspondence was made to
mean The order foS ,hlegIes 70. ne he soSnsumPI
want TO buy themln Maine, but Iwant them
delivered here, and want you to do IT,"
Judge Q. oohiinusd, holding that the deal
question as TO what forum governed the con.
tract, bot also the question OF whether the
custom OF reckoning q Thousand shingles by
measurement instead Of BY actual count " a.
binding upon him. 1t appeared that cedar and
spruce shingles were thus reekoned by mer-
camille usAge everywhere, and that the defend,
ant contracted with a ,dlatinet knowledge Of
Its eHIstence. A to he last exception, tn At
the ludee In his charge had Aeauucdl "a fncpi
% proved as q baAla for the Jur,,s eohsiderA.
tion, the fact was mentioned na Illustrative,
and hal IN the whole argument and evideno %
had been admitted ~ q fact In the ease. Hs
said that for these reasons the court had come
to the conclusion TO affirm the judgment be-
Angus 4 Lewis vs. Mary A Cox and ,Jans
p. Oox, This 10 = bill for lnjunetio On 10 ataJ
lands Leased By the defendants 90 the con.
| plAInanta. In 1856. October l, the defendan II
leased 10 the complainant square, No. az
tSs Iishty puTcsAhs ss Re ~ Tor ~ Soo Il ~,
end Of the term, II the lessees should have POI
fprmed all the oovenants on their part TO b
three, a. followsi !. To pay rent e27S per quar-
ter. !. To pay all taxes. .. To erect on III,
isndI, within twenty four months, building
The issses sY should faiito pay rent sSd iasss
| so that any rent should be due and unpaid 10
the space Of thirty days, OF the property shouli
days, then II should be lawful for the lesseei
/ to declare the lease forfeited, and the tern
should cease and deietminei aud unlesb fh'
leaseea should Immediately surrender the lant
| they should become tenants by suffefAnee
| Twenty-four montha having elapsed and nc
buildings being eteoted, the lessons gave noiie'
| to the ieasees that the right TO purchase wa
gone, being conditioned upon the Performance,
| Of the co. tenants Of the lease, and tho oovenAp
for building not being performed. Spbss
unpaid within the clause OF forfeiture, I'm,
| rent being unpaid for thirty dAys,l the lessor
EAy9 notice TO the le,seea that the lease wa
forfeited and the term determined. Subge
auentIy July 81, 1865, the Iessors gave notls
| To the tenants to cult, and In Septembe