Case Name: J. J. MOORE & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1905-01-03
Citations: 40 Ct. Cl. 513
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. J. MOORE & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
J. J. MOORE & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES.
[38 C. Cls. R., 590; 196 U. S. R., 157.]
On the claimant''s Appeal.
The claimants, in San Francisco, contract “ to furnish and deliver ” to the Quartermaster’s Department at Honolulu, “ delivered at the wharf,” 3,900 tons of Australian coal. Also by another contract, to deliver “ about 5,000 tons;-” “deliveries to commence with a cargo of about 2,200 tons; ” and the Quartermaster’s Department■ agrees to pay “for 5,000 tons.” This contract also provides that in case of failure to perform on the contractors’ part, the defendants “shall have the power to supply deficiency by purchase in open ma/rlset ” and charge the contractors with “ the extra cost over contract price of any coal so procured.” At Honolulu part of the coal is transferred to a United States vessel in the harbor; the remainder is unloaded on a wharf; but the harbor master compels the vessel to wait her turn before going to the wharf to discharge her cargo, which is the usage of the port. For the delay the claimants have to. pay demurrage. After delivering on the 5,000-ton contract 4,634 tons, carried by their own chartered vessels, the claimants purchase and tender the remaining 306 tons. The defendants refuse to receive it. The contractors sell it at a loss.
Tlie court below decides:
1. Where a contract, made in San Francisco, was to deliver coal “ at the wharf” in Honolulu, and the vessel, without fault of the defendants, was detained by the harbor master in consequence of the crowded condition of the harbor, the movement of vessels in the harbor being subject to his control, the purchaser can not be charged with demurrage,
2. A usage in San Francisco to pay demurrage in sucli a case can not control the terms of the contract.
3. Where a contract reduced to writing is inconsistent with usage, the parties, it will be presumed, agree to waive usage. Usage is admissible to explain what is doubtful, but never to contradict what is plain.
4. Where the rights and liabilities of the parties to a contract are fixed by the general principles of the common law they can not be changed by a local custom of the place where the contract is made.
5. Where the vendors deliver two cargoes containing 4,034 tons and subsequently purchase and tender the remaining 306 tons, they can not recover their losses on the coal so tendered, if refused, upon a contract which is for the sale of “ about 5,000 tons."
6. Where the language of a contract is the vendor’s it should be most strongly construed against him.

Opinion:
The decision of the court below as to the amount of coal the Government was bound to accej)t under the contract is reversed on the ground that words like " about " and " more or less " in a contract are only for the purpose of providing against accidental and not material variations.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 3,1905.