Export Lumber Co. v. Port Banga Co., 237 U.S. 388 (1915)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsExport Lumber Co. v. Port Banga Co., 237 U.S. 388 (1915)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs237 U.S.
388
35 S.Ct. 604
59 L.Ed. 1009
EXPORT & IMPORT LUMBER COMPANY, Appt.,
v.
PORT BANGA LUMBER COMPANY.
No. 686.
Submitted March 15, 1915.
Decided April 26, 1915.
Mr. Allison D. Gibbs for appellant.
Messrs. Clement L. Bouve and James Ross for appellee.
Memorandum opinion by Mr. Justice McReynolds, by direction of the
court:
This is an appeal from the supreme court of the Philippine Islands, allowed
May 13, 1914. Our jurisdiction depends on the amount involved; and a motion
to dismiss must be sustained unless, from a consideration of the whole record, it
fairly appears that 'the value in controversy exceeds twenty-five thousand
dollars.' Act of July 1, 1902, chap. 1369, 10, 32 Stat. at L. 691, 695, Comp.
Stat. 1913, 3804, 1225. What is actually in dispute here is the criterion.
Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 115 U. S. 611, 613, 29 L. ed. 502, 503, 6
Sup. Ct. Rep. 192; Martinez v. International Bkg. Corp. 220 U. S. 214, 221, 55
L. ed. 438, 442, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 408.
To avoid possible confusion their United States currency equivalents are used
herein instead of the Philippine peso and centavo.
The Port Banga Lumber Company instituted a proceeding November 14, 1910,
and afterwards filed an amended complaint, against appellant, the Export &
Import Lumber Company, wherein it alleged that in March or April, 1910, the
two companies entered into an oral arrangement to sell logs in the China trade
upon joint account,the proceeds to be appropriated first to expenses and then
equally divided; appellant, on May 6, 1910, agreed to furnish to the China
Import & Export Lumber Company logs at 90 cents per cubic foot; thereafter,
falsely pretending such stipulated price was 27 1/2 cents, appellant induced
complainant to consent to an annulment of the oral arrangement between them
and enter into a written one, dated June 10, 1910, under which the latter agreed
to supply the logs for 20 cents per cubic foot; and that at an expense of
$7,211.43 it delivered 32,032 cubic feet, and appellant collected therefor 90
cents per foot,$28,828.80. The complainant accordingly asked that the
writing of June 10th be annulled; the oral contract be declared in force; and, in
harmony therewith, judgment for $18,020.12.
4
The Export & Import Lumber Company denied the allegations in the
complaint, except as specifically admitted, but said the written contract of June
10th was in force and $2,500 had been paid thereunder and accepted by
complainant. It further set up that by the contract of May 6th it became
obligated to furnish the China Import & Export Lumber Company designated
logs within a specified time; on June 10th it transferred this duty to the
complainant, which failed fully to comply therewith; and as a consequence
$8,750 had to be deducted from the sale price which otherwise would have
been received. It therefore claimed damages to that extent and asked judgment
accordingly.
Counsel admitted of record that 32,032 cubic feet of logs were delivered by
complainant to the China Import & Export Lumber Company; and
unquestionably appellant collected therefor 90 cents per foot, $28,828.80, less
$8,750.
The court below held (26 Philippine, 602; 27 Philippine, ) the contract of
June 10th was procured by fraud; the rights of the parties depended upon the
oral agreement; the deduction of $8,750 from stipulated sale price should be
taken into consideration; complainant was entitled to its expenses of $7,211.43;
and that the balance of amount actually collected by appellant should be
equally divided. A certain credit of $450, explanation of which is now
unnecessary, having been allowed, judgment was entered April 3, 1914, against
appellant for $13,195.12, together with $2,683.01 interest from November 14,
1910, when the original complaint was filed,in all, $15,878.13. The Port
Banga Lumber Company has not appealed, and this is the maximum recovery
which appellant can suffer.
According to appellant's theory the written contract of June 10th remained in
force. A settlement thereunder would require a debit against it for logs
delivered32,032 cubic feet at 20 cents of $6,406.40, and necessitate credits of
$2,500, alleged payment on account, and $8,750, damages sustained. The
resulting balance of $4,843.60, with interest from November 14, 1910, to April
3, 1914, $984.87, or $5,828.47, is the greatest sum for which it could have
recovered judgment.
8
The maximum amount fairly in dispute is therefore the judgment of $15,878.13
against appellant, plus $5,828.47, which it sought to recover from appellee,a
total of $21,706.60. Dushane v. Benedict, 120 U. S. 630, 636, 30 L. ed. 810,
811, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 696; Buckstaff v. Russell & Co. 151 U. S. 626, 628, 39 L.
ed. 292, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448; Harten v. L offler, 212 U. S. 397, 403, 53 L. ed.
568, 571, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 351; Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610, 617, 33 L. ed.
667, 671, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 494; Philippine Code Civ. Proc. 510.
The value in controversy being under $25,000, the appeal must be dismissed.
