Missouri Furnace Co. v. Cochran
United States Circuit Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
8 F. 463 (1881)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Cochran (defendant) contracted to deliver 36,621 tons of coke (a type of coal) to Missouri Furnace (plaintiff) at the price off $1.20 per ton. The coke was scheduled to be delivered in installments, 13 tons per day. After delivering 3,765 tons of coke, Cochran notified Missouri Furnace that he would be rescinding the contract and did not deliver any more coke. Subsequently, Missouri Furnace entered into a similar installment contract with Hutchinson for the delivery of 29,587 tons of coke. However, the price on this contract was $4.00 per ton, as this was the prevailing market price for such a forward contract at the time. The market price of coke subsequently fell right after the Hutchinson contract was signed. Missouri Furnace brought suit against Cochran to recover its losses, seeking the difference between the price in the Cochran contract and the price it agreed to pay Hutchinson in that contract. The court found in favor of Missouri Furnace, but only for $22,179, the difference between the price in the Cochran contract and the market price of the coke at the time delivery should have been made on each of the several dates of that installment contract. Missouri Furnace moved for a new trial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Acheson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.