Case Name: KENNON v. BROOKS-SCANLON CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1911-03-14
Citations: 184 F. 988
Docket Number: No. 2,157
Parties: KENNON v. BROOKS-SCANLON CO.
Judges: Before PARDEE, MeCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 184
Pages: 988–988

Head Matter:
KENNON v. BROOKS-SCANLON CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 14, 1911.)
No. 2,157.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Harry H. Hall, J. Blanc Monroe, and Monte M. Leinann, for appellant. J. D. Rouse. Wm. Grant, Win. B. Grant, and Robt. R. Reid, for appellee.
Before PARDEE, MeCORMICK, and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
A majority of the judges are of opinion that the contract, which is the basis of this suit, lacks mutuality in this: That Kennon does not contract to receive and pay for all the shavings furnished or tendered him, nor any definite quantity thereof, but only such shavings as he shall be able to receive and take care of; só that in case Kennon's electric light plant' should break down or be otherwise disabled, or Kennon should find other and cheaper fuel, or, in short, find any reason satisfactory to himself, he could decide not to receive and pay' for any more shavings, and the Brooks-Scanlon Company could have no relief, except the right to temporary use of Kennon's blowpipe. See Rutland Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339, 19 L. Ed. 955, and cases 7 Rose's Notes, p. 332. And it is further concluded that, if the mutuality of the contract be conceded, the specific performance thereof is within the discretion of a court of equity, and should be refused, because it can, only be enforced by a mandatory injunction covering a term of years, and particularly in this case, where the plaintiff has a remedy at law substantial, if not fully complete and adequate, from the equity standpoint. See Javierre v. Central Altagracia, 217 U. S. 502, 508, 30 Sup. Ct. 598, 54 L. Ed. 859. The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.