Gill v. Johnstown Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1892 · Contracts

Contractsseverable contractentire contractapportioned considerationdelivery as conditioncommon carriage analogypartial performancefreight analogy

Facts

The plaintiff agreed to drive different categories of timber for the defendant: oak logs from points on Stony Creek and its tributaries above Johnstown to the defendant's boom at Johnstown, other kinds of logs to the same boom, and cross-ties to Bethel and to points below Bethel. The contract set separate rates for each category: one dollar per thousand feet for oak logs, seventy-five cents per thousand feet for other logs, three cents each for ties driven to Bethel, and five cents each for ties driven below Bethel. Some logs were delivered to the specified destinations, while others were swept by a flood to and through the defendant's boom. The dispute was whether the contract was entire or severable and whether the plaintiff could recover for work short of full delivery.

Issue

Was the contract an entire contract or a severable one? If severable, could the plaintiff recover at the contract rates for items delivered, and could he also recover for logs that were carried by flood through the defendant's boom without being delivered by him under the contract?

Rule

A contract is generally severable when one party's performance consists of several distinct items and the price to be paid by the other party is apportioned to each item or is left to be implied by law. If the consideration is single and entire, the contract is entire even though the subject matter contains several distinct items. But where the price for each item covers the whole required performance for that item and is not apportioned to parts of that performance, there is no recovery for partial performance of that item when delivery to the designated place is prevented by casus.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Oregon, Nora Kim agreed with Cascade Hollow Millworks to haul cedar beams from Eugene to the company's yard in Salem at $90 per load, pine beams from Eugene to Salem at $70 per load, and fence posts from Corvallis to Albany at $4 per post. Nora completed all cedar loads and all fence-post deliveries, but none of the pine loads.

How should a court most likely characterize the agreement, and what may Nora recover?

Explanation. A contract is generally severable when one party's performance consists of several distinct items and the other party's price is apportioned to each item. Here, cedar loads, pine loads, and fence posts are separately priced. Under the majority's rule, Nora may recover at the stipulated rates for the items actually delivered, even though she did not complete every category.