Dixon, Irmaos & Cia. Ltda. v. Chase National Bank
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
144 F.2d 759 (1944)
- Written by Alex Hall, JD
Facts
Dixon, Irmaos & Cia. Ltda. (Dixon) (plaintiff) was a Brazilian cotton exporter that entered into an agreement to sell cotton to a buyer in Belgium. The buyer, through a Belgian bank, requested two letters of credit to finance the sale. Dixon had the letter of credit confirmed by Chase National Bank (Chase) (defendant), which agreed to provide the necessary amounts upon production of a “full set of bills of lading.” Dixon shipped the goods freight collect and sent one bill of lading by air and one by ship. One bill of lading was in transit on the letter of credit’s expiration date, so the seller could not comply with the strict requirements of the contract. Dixon obtained indemnity from Guaranty Trust, which it offered to Chase in place of the bill of lading. It was customary if bills of lading could not be produced for banks issuing credit to accept a guaranty of a leading New York bank as a substitute. However, because the guaranty did not comply with the strict requirements of the letter of credit, Chase refused to accept the indemnity in place of the bill of lading and would not pay Dixon the amount due under the letter of credit. Dixon filed suit in district court, which ruled in favor of Chase under a strict interpretation of the contract. Dixon appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Swan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.