## Facts

- Whitman (buyer) and Anglum (seller) executed a written contract on March 5, 1914, for Anglum to sell Whitman at least 175 quarts of milk each day from April 1, 1914, to April 1, 1915.
- The contract stated Whitman was to pick up the milk at Anglum’s premises at No. 1 Wawarme Avenue in Hartford.
- On November 23, 1914, the state Commissioner of Domestic Animals quarantined Anglum’s cattle and all products of his farm due to hoof-and-mouth disease; Anglum was restricted from leaving the premises and farm products were restricted from removal.
- Shortly after the quarantine, all cows on the farm were killed.
- From about November 22, 1914, to March 13, 1915, Anglum failed to furnish or offer to furnish milk under the contract.
- Whitman sued for breach of contract in the Court of Common Pleas (Hartford County); the court, sitting without a jury, awarded Whitman $119.
- Anglum appealed, arguing the quarantine legally excused performance.

## Issues

1. Whether a state quarantine of the seller’s farm and its products excuses performance of an absolute and unconditional contract to sell and deliver a daily quantity of milk when the contract does not require the milk to come from that farm or particular cows.
2. Whether a delivery-location term requiring pickup at the seller’s premises makes performance legally impossible when access to and removal of products from the premises are restricted by quarantine.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment for Whitman (“No error”).
- The court held the quarantine did not excuse Anglum’s nonperformance because the order did not make supplying milk unlawful and the contract did not limit performance to milk produced on Anglum’s farm or from his herd.
- The clause designating pickup at Anglum’s address was treated as a place-of-delivery term, not a restriction on the permissible source of milk.

## Legal Principles

- A promisor who undertakes an absolute and unconditional obligation is not discharged merely because performance becomes difficult or impossible for the promisor, so long as the promised performance is not illegal.
- A supervening governmental act excuses performance only when it renders performance illegal or defeats the contract as written.
- Where a contract does not specify a particular source of supply, the promisor bears the risk that its own facilities or property become unavailable; the promisor remains obligated to perform by lawful means, including obtaining substitute supply.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the milk-supply contract despite the quarantine because the agreement did not require milk from the quarantined farm, and the quarantine did not make delivery of milk itself unlawful; increased hardship to the seller did not discharge an unconditional contractual duty.


Whitman v. Anglum, 92 Conn. 392, 103 A. 114 (Conn. 1918)