The citizen. (Honesdale, Pa.) 1908-1914, 1911-07-12
SUPREME COURT
UPHOLDS VERDICT
Lake LOdOre Improvement
Company Loses Appeal
II. L. WHITNEY'S CLAIM SUS-
TANNED IN INTERESTING
ICE DECISION.

huSSell l. w uIIuey against Tie LANE
Lodore improvement Company. This
case was tried at the June Term of
Court, 1910, before Judge R. G.
Stewart of Northampton county,
specially presiding in Honesdale. 1t
was developed at the trial, that the
Honesdale Ice Company had entered
into an agreement with the Lake Lo-
dore improvement Company, by
which the Lake Lodore improvement
Company was to furnish the Homes
dale Ice Company not less than 1900
tons of ice a year, with the privilege
on the part of the Honesdale Ice
Company to take 1900 tons at $1.00
per ton, less the freight. On Feb
ruary l, 1909, the Honesdale Ice
Company assigned it's interest in it's
business, including the contract with
pany to Russell T. Whitney, who un-
dertook to carry on the business of
retailing ice in Honesdale.
The winter of 1909 being unusu-
ally unfavorable for the ice business,
only small crop was harvested, and
ice Immediately raised in price, until
$3.50 a ton was paid for ice in
Honesdale.
time that his contract became effec-
tive, made a demand upon the Lake
Lodore Improvement Company for
ice, which was refused. Mr. Whit
ney demanded a reason for such re-
fusal, but was informed that his
contract had been declared void by
the Lake Lodore improvement Com
pany on February 1, 1909, by reason
of the failure of the Honesdale Ice
Company to live up to their part of
the agreement, before assigning their
interest to Whitney. 1t was impos-
sible at that time for Mr.. Whitney
to secure ice to supply his custom
ers, and was obliged to surrender his
business. All of Mr. Whitney's GUS
| toners were left without any pro-
visions for supplying them with ice,
at time when ice was most needed
His team, wagons and appliances
were left on his hands, at a loss, and
he was unable in any way to care for
his customers.
1t was in the fall, following, Mr.
Whitney brought suit against the
Lake Lodore improvement Company,
alleging the damages he sustained by
reason of its failure to furnish him
ice, according to agreement.
The case as above stated was tried
in the Court of Common Pleas of
Wayne county, before Judge R. C.
Stewart and a jury, when a verdict
was rendered in favor of Mr.. Whit
ney, in the sum of Three thousand,
two hundred fifty ($3,250) dollars.
The Lake Lodore improvement
Company at once appealed to the
Supreme Court of the state, where
the case was argued in February,
1911. The decision as rendered on
Thursday, being full vindication of
Mr.. Whitney's claim, and the version
of the law as given by his attorneys.
Homer Greene and Chas. A. Nc
Carty were attorneys for Mr.. Whit
ney at the trial Of the case in the
Court of Common Pleas of Wayne
county and also before the Supreme
Court at Philadelphia in February,
1911.
Chas. P. O'Malley of the law firm
of Warren, Knapp and OMalley
Scranton, Pa, and Frank P. Kimble,
Honesdale, appeared for the Lake
Lodore Improvement Company.
! The defence set up by the Lake
Lodore Improvement Company ia
w ullueJ . CldlLlf W do IhdI Ih0 IlOhCo-
dale Ice Company had failed to make
their payments in accordance with
the terms of the agreement, and that
they had cancelled the contract be-
fore February, 1909, though by the
terms of the contract itself, it would
continue until September, 1912
The court held that one party alone
could not declare a contract void
1I,itb failnpn NJ m 4,
ed by the other party, and that the
fact that the Lake Lodore Improve
ment Company received payments
when made, without any objection
acted as an estoppel, and they could
not declare the contract void with
out first giving the Honesdale Ice
Company notice that they intended
from that time to hold the Honesdale
Ice Company strictly to their agree
ment. The Lake Lodore Improve
ment Company also claimed that il
was the duty of Mr.. Whitney, when
he received notice in February, 1909
from the Lake Lodore Improvement
Company that his contract had been
declared off, to go into the market
and buy ice from other parties, and
in this way supply his customers
The Court would not sustain this
view, but held that Whitney had 8
right to rely upon his contract to re-
ceive ice, and upon the failure of the
Lake Lodore Improvement Company
to furnish same, he could recover
damages sustained by him. The
Lake Lodore Improvement Com
pany denied that they received notice
that Mr.. Whitney intended to con
tinue the business, after the assign
ment had been made to him, though
they admitted that they received the
check enclosed in the same envelope
in which the letter was alleged tC
be sent to them. The Court held
that the presumption in law is. thai
this letter having been written, seal.