A. B. Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co.,
267 U.S. 248 (1925)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

A. B. Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co., 267 U.S. 248 (1925)

A. B. Small Company v. Lamborn & Company

No. 100

Argued October 21, 22, 1924

Decided March 2, 1925

267 U.S. 248


1. Contracts for the sale of sugar considered, and held free from the objection that they made delivery optional with the seller, and therefore lacked mutuality. P. 267 U. S. 250.

2. In an action by the seller on an intrastate contract for the sale and delivery of goods owned by the seller and title to which passed to the buyer unrestricted under the contract, the buyer cannot defend upon the ground that the seller was party to a combination to manipulate interstate trade in goods of that kind in violation of the Anti-Trust Act, and made the contract during the life of the combination and in conformity with standards sanctioned by it. It is only when the invalidity is inherent in the contract itself that the Act may be interposed as a defense to it. P. 267 U. S. 251.

3. Defenses based on §§ 4, 5 and 6 of the Lever Act held insufficient on grounds stated in Small Co. v. Am. Sugar Co., ante, 267 U. S. 233. P. 267 U. S. 252.

4. The duty of a seller of goods, in reselling on account of the buyer, is to sell fairly in a reasonably diligent effort to obtain a good price; the test is not whether he got the highest possible price or as much as others got in particular instances. P. 267 U. S. 253.

5. Evidence of particular sales held rightly rejected in the circumstances. Id.

6. Where the evidence is undisputed or of such conclusive character that, if a verdict were returned for one party, whether plaintiff or defendant, it would have to be set aside in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, a verdict should be directed for the other party. P. 267 U. S. 254.

7. The view that a scintilla or modicum of conflicting evidence, irrespective of the character and measure of that to which it is opposed, necessarily requires a submission to the jury has met with express disapproval by this Court and by many others. Id.

Page 267 U. S. 249

8. Evidence held to establish conclusively that reales of goods, made by the vendor, were made fairly and within a reasonable time. P. 267 U. S. 254.


Error to a judgment of the district court in favor of the plaintiff, Lamborn & Co., in an action brought to recover the difference between the contract price of sugar sold by plaintiff to defendant and the amount obtained by the plaintiff on resale, the defendant having refused to accept delivery.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.