The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-12-13
ORDERS NEW TRIAL
IN COAL SALE CASE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RE-
VERSES LOWER TRIBUNAL. IN
WEST VIRGINIA CASE.

An opinion prepared by Circuit
Judge Pritchard was handed down
| Monday i'll the United States Circuit
Court Of Appeals i'll the case of Mer-
chants Coal Company of West Vir-
| ginia. plaintiff in error, Vs. Frank II.
Leonard, defendant In error. The ac
! ton Is based upon q contract between
the parties for the sale Of coal in the
/ New England States. 1t was insisted
by the pialnti1. Leonard, that he had
devoted Il large amount OF time and
trouble iii an effort to procure IL very
important and valuable contract for
the sale by the company to one Me
Neil. of 2bQ,o tons Of coal. and after
the contract was entered into a very
large proportion amounting 10 ZOE, 900
tons Of the coal Included IN the con-
tract was delivered, and on the other
! hand the plaintim in error here in
sisted that this contract was wholly
made after the agreement between
the parties had terminated. Judge
PfjtChard, in his opinions hold as fol-
lows.
Under the fifth assignment OF err
rur, among other things IL Is insist ed
that the court below erred in refusing
TO grant the following instruction:
! The court instructs the Jury that il
{ t!ifS ntiCNc from the tSlEttUSc mat
what is known us the Mcneil contract
o. 2ao.oo0 tons was wholly made after
/ the plaintin, Leonard's. agreement
with the defendant had terminated as
to New England sale, then they must
! ind tor the defendant.
The evidence" (which the judge
quotes in his opinioul "hatlv contra
diets the evidence of the plaintiff be-
low as to the time when tho contract
for New England sale was terminated
and tends to show that the contract
Tor the large purchase of coal by Nc
Neil was made some time after the
contract between tho parties had heen
terminated. If as the defendant con
! tends, the contract under which the
i plaintiH had been acting as agent OF
the defendant tor the sale 81 coal had
terminated. We are of opinion that in
the absence of new contract. au~
! thorizing the plaintiff t. act AS its
agent III procuring sales, the plaintin
would not be enutied To recover for
any services which he may have rem
dered under such circumstances. II
appearing that the evidence az to this
point was conflicting. II became inn
portant for the jury, among other
things. to determine rs Ia whether
the contract III question was entered
into before or after the termination
Of the contract for the New England
sales, Ia view ot the evidence. we
think the court should have granted
this Instruction. and that It's refusal
To- do SO was prc1udicial to the rights
of the defendant.
The decision of the lower court Is
reversed and the case ren.anded with
directions to grant new tr1al i'll aC
coroance with the views herein ex-
ressed.'
Leonard recovered $6,739.1s in the
lower court.
The following cases We're argued.
M. 1901. United States ri America.
plaintiff in errors. vs.. Bank of North
Wltkeshoro, defendant In error IN
error to the Circuit Court at Greens
bore, y. g. Cause argued lay ~. l..
Coble. assistant United States attor-
nes, of Statesville. \. G. for the plain
tit in error. and by w. VI. Henuren.
of Winston y. g., for the defendant
in error and submitted.
No. 1909. The Postal Telegraph
Cable Company, plaintiff In error. vs.
Frank Grautham, defendant fn err
ror: in error to the Circuit Court at
Raleigh, y. G. Cause argued by Chas.
Y. Meredith. of this city and Robert
c. Strong. OF Raleigh, n. G. for the
plaintiff i'll error and by Charles f.,
Aycoch, % Raleigh. \. G., for the
defendant In error.