Talk:Higgins v. McCrea/Opinion of the Court

This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page.

Information about this edition
Edition:	Higgins v. McCrea, , in executing the orders of the defendant for the purchase, in May, 1883, of certain lots of pork and lard in the exchange of the Chicago Board of Trade, to be delivered in the following August The petition averred that the plaintiffs were commission merchants and members of said board of trade; that the transactions out of which the suit arose were governed by the rules of the board; and that the defendant had knowledge of said rules The petition then averred, as a first cause of action, that on May 19, 1883, the plaintiffs purchased, on the order of defendant, and as his brokers and agents, and for his account, 1,000 barrels of pork and 1,000 tierces of lard, to be delivered in August next, on such day as the vendor might elect; that on August 1, 1883, the property was tendered, and payment demanded of the plaintiffs, and, in accordance with the defendant's instructions, and the terms and conditions of their agency, the plaintiffs received the pork and lard, and paid therefor $58,55334, the price thereof, and $56 for inspection charges thereon,-all which the plaintiffs were bound and compelled to do by the terms of the contract and the rules and regulations of the board of trade, which constituted a part of the contract of agency between the parties, and of the contract of purchase; that on the same day notice was given to the defendant that the pork and lard had been received and paid for; that he failed to give directions for the disposition of the property, and failed to pay therefor, and plaintiffs thereupon sold the same in the exchange of the board of trade and according to its rules, and received therefor, and credited to the account of the defendant, $42,61597; that they had previously received from the defendant on that account the sum of $6,63166; and that the balance due from him, and unpaid on account of that transaction, was $9,36171, with interest from the date of sale For a second cause of action the plaintiffs set up transactions in all respects similar to those alleged in the first, namely, their purchase, on May 22, 1883, for defendant, on his order, of 2,000 barrels of pork and 2,000 tierces of lard, deliverable in August following; the delivery of the produce on August 1st, and the payment therefor by the plaintiffs; its subsequent sale by them at a loss of $21,83260 By a third count the plaintiffs claimed $450 for commissions in said transactions The petition then averred that there was due to the plaintiffs from the defendant, by reason of the premises, the sum already stated, for which they demanded judgment .
Source:	Higgins v. McCrea from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/116
Contributor(s):	BenchBot
Level of progress:	Text being edited
Notes:	Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information.
Proofreaders:

Start a discussion about Higgins v. McCrea/Opinion of the Court

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikisource the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve Higgins v. McCrea/Opinion of the Court.

Start a discussion