Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HARTFORD CITY PAPER CO. v. ENTERPRISE PAPER CO.

September 30, 1949

HARTFORD CITY PAPER CO.
v.
ENTERPRISE PAPER CO. et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BARD

This is a civil action to recover $ 3523.97 as allegedly representing the balance due on goods specially manufactured by the plaintiff for the defendants and the storage charges on these goods which were paid by the plaintiff.

On the basis of the pleadings and the testimony, I make the following special Findings of Fact:

 1. The plaintiff is Hartford City Paper Company, an Indiana corporation whose home office and manufacturing plant is in Hartford City, Indiana.

 2. The defendant Enterprise Paper Company, hereinafter called Enterprise, is a Pennsylvania corporation whose principal office is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

 3. The defendant Cellulose and Paper Converting Company, Inc., hereinafter called Cellulose, is a Pennsylvania corporation whose principal office is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

 4. The defendants are family corporations with interlocking officers, directors and shareholders, and were interchangeably and indistinguishably involved in the transaction hereinafter described.

 5. The plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing glassine and greaseproof paper, and derivatives thereof. One of the plaintiff's products is Lustron, the trade-name for a coated and embossed glassine, which is made in the United States by the plaintiff only.

 6. The defendants are in the business of manufacturing and distributing paper and paper products, particularly paper roll specialties and gift wrappings.

 7. In December 1946 authorized agents of the plaintiff and the defendants discussed the purchase by the defendant Cellulose of colored Lustron in order to round out Cellulose's line of products.

 8. On December 30, 1946 the defendant Cellulose ordered on its own stationery 600 reams of gold Lustron and 300 reams each of red, green, blue, dubonnet and peach Lustron. Each color was equally divided among the following six designs or patterns: Imperial Moire, scotty, cordline, whipcord, broadline and brocade.

 9. On December 30, 1949 the defendant Cellulose also ordered 300 reams of silver metalglass in three designs.

 10. This order from the defendant Cellulose was on separate sheets, one for each color, and included the color of the Lustron, the number of reams of each design or pattern, the side of the sheets of paper, and that they were to be ream wrapped.

 11. On January 2, 1947 the plaintiff accepted the defendant Cellulose's order by acknowledgment on separate sheets of paper containing terms corresponding to those in Cellulose's order, and including the price per ream f.o.b. mill *fn1" , that it was to be shipped as soon as possible, and that the basis weight of the paper was 30 pounds per ream.

 12. This Lustron was sold to the defendant Enterprise but was to be shipped to the defendant Cellulose. The plaintiff would not accept the credit of Cellulose alone.

 13. The plaintiff began to manufacture this paper in January 1947.

 14. The normal production time of Lustron paper was about six weeks. The plaintiff was four months behind in its production of customers' orders. But the defendants' order was a rush order which was completed in about three weeks.

 15. On January 27, 1947 the plaintiff shipped the gold, red, and blue Lustron and the silver metalglass.

 16. On February 12, 1947 the defendants received and accepted this shipment.

 17. Under the customary terms of the plaintiff, which terms were on its invoices and were known to the defendants, the defendants were entitled to a 2% cash discount if the invoices were paid within thirty days, and the bill became due net in thirty-one days.

 19. When the invoices fell due the defendants did not pay them.

 20. On March 11, 1947 the defendants requested permission to pay these invoices on the 27th day of March, April, May and June of 1947.

 21. The defendants paid a total of $ 11,240.44 against these invoices and against invoice 5615 which was for another order in the amount of $ 115.47. None of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.