Skip to content


Red River Cattle Co. Vs. Sully - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number144 U.S. 209
AppellantRed River Cattle Co.
RespondentSully
Excerpt:
red river cattle co. v. sully - 144 u.s. 209 (1892) u.s. supreme court red river cattle co. v. sully, 144 u.s. 209 (1892) red river cattle company v. sully no. 249 submitted march 28, 1892 decided april 4, 1892 144 u.s. 209 error to the circuit court of the united states for the northern district of texas syllabus when the errors assigned depend upon the terms and construction of a contract, it should appear in the record. this was an action brought by the defendant in error to recover damages for the nonperformance of a contract contained in a bill of sale of cattle running on a range and in the pastures of the plaintiffs in error in texas. the record contained no copy of this contract. the brief of the.....
Judgment:
Red River Cattle Co. v. Sully - 144 U.S. 209 (1892)
U.S. Supreme Court Red River Cattle Co. v. Sully, 144 U.S. 209 (1892)

Red River Cattle Company v. Sully

No. 249

Submitted March 28, 1892

Decided April 4, 1892

144 U.S. 209

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Syllabus

When the errors assigned depend upon the terms and construction of a contract, it should appear in the record.

This was an action brought by the defendant in error to recover damages for the nonperformance of a contract contained in a bill of sale of cattle running on a range and in the pastures of the plaintiffs in error in Texas.

The record contained no copy of this contract. The brief of the counsel for plaintiffs in error stated "the questions involved" thus:

"1. Under the contract, should the winter loss from December 29, 1883, to October 1, 1885, be added to the number of cattle actually found and counted? or should only the winter loss occurring from December 29, 1883, to the spring of 1884, be added to the number actually found and counted?"

"2. Under the contract, before the Red River Cattle Company could recover for any excess over 3,700 head owned by it on the 29th of December, 1883, was it necessary that more than 3,700 should be actually found and counted? or was it only required that the number actually found and counted, when added to the winter loss occurring after December 29, 1883, should exceed 3700 head?"

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The only errors assigned which might call for consideration depend upon the terms and the construction of a contract which does not appear in the record.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //