Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-02-06
SUPREME COURT WILL
REVIEW SOx LITIGATION
Contract for Half-Hose for European
Armies Subject Of
Suit.
CASE APPEALED FROM NORFOLK
Writ OF Error and Supcrscdcas
Granted to Decree Awarding Act
na Hosiery Company. Of WOrces-
ter, Mass. $4,000 Damages.

litigation growing out OF "a large
contract for half-hosc intended for
the use OF the European armies award
ed early last year by the Norfoik
Hosiery aud Underwear NILS Company.
or Norfolk. to the Aetna Hosiery Com
nany. Of Worcester. Mass, VIII be re
viewed by the state Supreme Court.
which Yesterday granted the Norfolk,
company "a writ Of error and Supcrsc-
IDEAS TO the decree Of the Circuit Court
OF tina, city awarding the Worcester
company $4,000 damages
FROM the correspondence fled with
the petition. II appears that on January
.. sl5. Joseph Il. and Mortcn Il. IIech;.
trading as the Norfolk Hosiery ana
underwear Mills Company. contracted
with the Worcester company for TN.
chtirc output OF certain hosiery knit
ting machines towards the purchase of
winch the Norfoll men undertook 10
advance the manufacturers money The
Worcestt- company bound itself To de-
liver 100 dozen half-hose a week at
si6o dozen.
Much correspondence between tho
contracting parti.s is introduced hN
tn" iiechts 20 show that they constant
~ impressed upon the manufacturers
tho necessity for prompt shipment,
emphasis being laid on time as a con
trolling element Of tho contract H.
was agreed between tho two. tho
ltechts claim. that the manufactured
product should either be shipped 10 tho
iiecht agents in New York or deposit
ed IN warehouse aud receipts taken.
the plan being to assemble III Sow
York large quantities Of the hosiery
TO be shipped TO Tho warning govern
mcnts as fast az purchases were made
and vessels We're available 10 carry the
goods
CLAIM SAMPIJ: WAS NOT
Up ro SPECIFICATIONS
According to the Hech,s. not "a Sin
or h,a n III
under tn" contract 4 dozen sample
we're submitted 10 them on February
2$ 1915. and proved no, TO be up To
specifications. dissatisfaction with tho
samples Was cAprcss"d in letter 90
the manufacturers ~ this time tho
ticchts claim. conditions havin. arisen
which made II adv!sa bic TO store tho
hos" III waEchouse, they notified IN.
Worcester company 10 max" II" ship
ments of The hosiery 10 New York
The Worcester company iurtittitc,i
suit IN tho Circuit Court OF Tho city Or
Norfolk charging breach Of couirac,
The iicchts. it claimed, violated their
contract by instruc,ing Tho COMPANY
To max" II" further shipments to Scw
York. rh" Norfolk company denied tn,
breach of contract charge. insisting
that the instructions not :" ship an,
goods 10 New York lcas in a.cor! with
the contract, which provided for tn.
warch"uSinG Of the goods IA an alton
r.aiive
verde, for $4,000 damage
awarded tho Worcester company b,
Circuit Court OF Norfolk. and Ia a.
deere" tho Supreme Court a,vard.I tho,
ti"chts writ Of .rr"r and slp~rye-
IDEAS Yesterday. requiring bond IN ,h..
sum Of 10000
IN appeal and sup.rsodcas was
awarded by the Supreme cour; IN ~.
case Of Emma n Garrctt a;aius; 10
tit'a g. Sorrels administrator ara o,h
erS. appealed from thr decree 81 tn.
circuit Court of tho city Of Roanoke
entered November *. 1916 Tho ...,s.
grows on; OF differences about the
construction I" be placed on .cr,aii,
provisions in i.ct!tia g. S"rrcrs VIII