PORTO RICO SUGAR COMPANY
v.
LORENZO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Porto Rico Sugar Company contracted with Lorenzo to grind all of the company's sugar cane during specified grinding seasons ending in 1912, but Lorenzo failed to grind the cane during the agreed January-June period in 1908, grinding much of it later in June and July instead and failing to provide adequate equipment. The Supreme Court affirmed a $15,000 judgment for Porto Rico Sugar, holding that a contract to grind sugar cane necessarily implies performance during the customary grinding season regardless of whether the contract explicitly states a time limit, and that parol evidence may be admitted to establish what that season is.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action upon notarial contracts to grind all the plaintiff’s sugar cane raised upon specified plantations let to him for a certain number of zafras or grinding seasons ending in 1912. The breaches alleged'are failure to grind the cane, 'during the months of January to June,’ 1908, and to furnish the necessary cars and men to handle the cane as agreed. At the trial it was proved that the cane was ready to be ground and should have been ground between the months of January and the first weeks of June, but that a large part of the crop was ground in the latter part, of June and through July to the great damage of the plaintiff. A failure to furnish the proper number of cars for a part of the time also was established. The contract did not fix a period within which the grinding should be done otherwise than by refference to the zafras to which it extended, and it was objected by demurrer, requests for ruling and exceptions to evidence that as the written agreement was silent it could not be made more definite by parol. But the court ruled the other way and sustained a verdict of $15,000 for the plaintiff, whereupon the case was brought to this court.
It appears to us not to need extended argument to show that the court was right. A contract to grind sugar cane implies on its face, if read with any knowledge of the business, that it has reference to seasons, and that it is more definite than a simple grammatical interpretation of the words would express. An illustration suggested at the argument brings'it home to those of us whose experience has been in the North. A contract to reap a field of wheat with no mention of time would not leave the contractor free to choose his own time. The grinding of cane must be done in the grinding season, and a contract to grind is a contract to grind in the grinding season. Parol evidence may be necessary to show what that season is in a given place, as it constantly is in order to translate words and the implications of words into things; but the season when ascertained is the limit by the very meaning of the words used, when used in a business contract made with regard to one of the great industries of the world.
A part of the delay seems to have been caused by the repeated breaking down of the machinery, but nothing appears to take the case out of the ordinary rule that performance of an absolute undertaking is not excused by facts of that sort. Nothing else in the case séem to us to call for remark. The trial was conducted fairly and intelligently, and the defendant must bear the loss.
Judgment affirmed,.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Raynor, 302 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1938)…64, c. 210, § 3, 13 Stat. 344, 351. Greenleaf v. Goodrich, 101 U. S. 278, 282, 283. See, Rhode Island Hospital v. Olney, 16 R. I. 184; 13 Atl. 118. New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 91 U. S. 656. Porto Rico Sugar Co. v. Lorenzo, 222 U. S. 481; Lamar v. United States, 240 U. S. 60; Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U. S. 427. As illustrative, the following extracts from cases involving offenses against the currency refer to false or counterfeit instruments: “When a man has…
-
Commercial Ins. Co. OF Newark v. Gonzalez, 512 F.2d 1307 (1st Cir. 1975)…on in the position of the insured. A businessman or a professional entering into a contract is expected to have the usual sophistication and understanding of those in the industry to which the contract relates. Porto Rico Sugar Co. v. Lorenzo, 1912, 222 U.S. 481, 32 S.Ct. 133, 56 L.Ed. 277. . Parenthetically, it will be recalled that if we had not previously assumed the preparer of Endorsement 7 to be careless, the case would have ended then and there. See n. 8, ante. . The statement in claimants’ brief t…
-
Julian Petroleum Corp. v. Courtney Petroleum Co., 22 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1927)…error entered into a positive agreement to properly drill the well down to the Miley sand, and the mere breaking of the machinery or other misfortune affords no excuse in law for the failure to perform its contract. Porto Rico Sugar Co. v. Lorenzo, 222 U. S. 481, 32 S. Ct. 133, 56 L. Ed. 277. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence