The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1910-04-13
Judge w. L. Mcnamara Reversed by
Supreme Court Of State in Find
ing for sutIive Bros. of
this City
APPEALED BY CHICAGO
Judgement Entered Against Them for
$1,000 is Reversed and Case
Remanded for New
Trial.

The supreme court of Iowa has re-
versed Judge w. L. Mcnamara in his
decision in the case of Sutlive Bros.
of this city VS.. Morgan & Wright of
Chicago, in which judgment of 3d.,
600 was found for the Keokuk firm.
The law firm of Hollingsworth &
Blood represented Morgan & Wright
and took the appeal to the supreme
court, while Attorneys Felix 7.
Hughes and w. j. Roberts represented
Sutlive Bros. The Chicago firm
brought suit for s100 on a bill and
Sutlive Bros. filed q counter claim for
$4,000 because of violation of con-
tract. A statement of facts follow:
The plaintiffs, Morgan & Wright, in
the fall of 1900 were requested by the
defendants to make them a price at
which they would manufacture for the
defendants rubber spools. and in re-
Spouse to this inquiry plaintiffs wrote
that they would accept orders for $780,
600 at S2S5 per thousand but no less,
and thereafter defendant sent plain
tiff an order for 100000 rubber spools
to be delivered during the year 1901
and asked them to enter the order
and in reply thereto the plaintiff
wrote the defendant that the order
had come to hand and was having
their best attention. Thereafter the
plaintiffs manufactured at their Chica-
go plant and shipped to the defendant
at Keokuk, Iowa, numerous shipments
of spools, each shipment containing
a number of thousand spools, and the
defendants RENTED for different in
voices from time to time. but very
soon dropped behind in the payment
of bills when due. same being due
on the 10th of month following ship
n. ent. At times the defendants were
clamoring for the delivery of spools
and at Other times suggested that the
shipments be held up by plaintiff and
longer time allowed between ship
ments.
Early in November 1902 a strike oc-
cured in plaintiffs factory in Chicago
among its employees, and they were
unable to manufacture spools during
the strike which did not end until the
last of December or early in January
1908.
On December 49, 1902, the defen-
dants requested plaintiff to i'll an or
der for $4,000, which was done In
January 1903 plaintiff wrote defen-
dants informing them inst it would
take 1926 to balance the account
between them and asking them to re-
nit for that amount. which the defen-
dants id without objection on Janu-
airy 90. 1903 Nothing was said at any
time at or befo.e the striking of this
balance and the payment of this.
Early in. 1908 it appearing that
there were few thousand manufac-
tured spools on hand in plaintiff s
hands, defendants requested them to
ship the same, which the plaintiff did
and which amounted at the price of
$2S5 per thousand to S1O7o1. There
after defendants neglected to pay
this and it was placed in the hands
vi dtJOl hSSS iOI COiiCCIiOi, anu tllell
for the first time the defendants
claimed that they had been damaged
by non-delivery of the spools under
the previous orders. At the time this
claim was made defendants were pro-
curing their spools elsewhere. ne
suit at bar was then instituted on
this account for S107.01.
The defendants at no time until
about the time of the cancellation of
the second order made any attempt
to procure spools elsewhere than of
plaintiff, although there were a dozen
other manufacturers of rubber goods
in the middle west, such as the B. F.
Goodrich company and the Republic
Rubber company, at least one of
whom had previously manufactured
spools 70. defendants. and another did
when the order with plaintiff was can
celed
B. e. Sutlive in support of his coun-
terclaim testified that he had been in
the business of buying and selling an
article called a rubber spool used in
cleansing the dust from feather pill
lows under the firm name of Sutlive
Bros. since about 1891, and that they
cost him about 81 a thousand and he
sold them for about $40 a thousand
and that during the var 1901 he re-
ceiyed from Morgan & Wright 1853 ,275
spools, and from May l. 1902, to
December 81, 1902, 1o1,49S spools,
and that If he had received 100000
spools during 1901 he could have sold
them all He admitted that he can
celed the second alleged order about
December 81, 1902, but stated that if
he had received all of the 275,o00
spools which lie alleged was due HIM
under the contract between May /,
1902, he could have sold all of them.