Warren v. Stoddart

Decision Date01 October 1881
Citation26 L.Ed. 1117,105 U.S. 224
PartiesWARREN v. STODDART
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

Joseph M. Stoddart was a book publisher, carrying on business in the city of Philadelphia, under the name of J. M. Stoddart & Co. In 1878 he undertook to reprint and sell in the United States a new edition, consisting of twenty-one volumes, of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which A. & C. Black, of Edinburgh, Scotland, were then bringing out.

His plan was to sell the work by subscription only; the subscriptions were to be obtained by agents and canvassers, to whom certain territory was to be allotted. It was expected that the work would be printed and published at the rate of about three volumes per year.

Moses Warren was an agent in the city of Chicago for the sale of subscription books; that is, books sold only by subscription. On Feb. 24, 1877, he and Stoddart entered into a contract in writing, which is as follows:——

'PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 24, 1877.

'Agreement entered into this day between J. M. STODDART & CO., of Philadelphia, Pa., and MOSES WARREN, of Chicago, Ill.

'The said J. M. Stoddart & Co. agree to give the said Moses Warren a general agency for the sale of the American reprint of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the following territory.'

Here follows a description of the territory, consisting of several States and parts of States, and a list of the prices at which Stoddart & Co. agreed to furnish Warren with the books in various styles of binding. The contract then proceeds:——

'Said J. M. Stoddart & Co. also agree to give to said Moses Warren the exclusive right to sell the Encyclopaedia Britannica within the above-named territory, during such time as said Warren shall faithfully perform his part of the agreement as hereinafter stated.

'1st, Said Warren agrees to use his best endeavors to promote the sale of the $03R Britannica in the above-assigned field.

'2d, To send to J. M. Stoddart & Co. a weekly report of the number of orders taken the week

'3d, To fill no orders outside of number of orders taken the week his assigned field.

'4th, To leave no volumes with booksellers to sell or display in their stores.

'5th, To furnish no volumes at less than the regular retail price.

'6th, To remit on the 7th day of the month one-half the amount of monthly statement for previous month, and to remit on the 26th day of the month the remaining one-half of said monthly statement.

'Witness our hands and seals on the day and date above mentioned.

'J. M. STODDART & CO. [SEAL.]

'MOSES WARREN.' [SEAL.]

Warren at once entered upon the performance of this contract, and by April 20, 1878, had obtained and reported to Stoddart subscriptions for 1,733 sets of the work, and had de- livered to subscribers a portion of the volumes of the work which had been issued up to that time; on an average less than four volumes to each subscriber.

In the latter part of the year 1877 or early in 1878 the Scotch publishers of the Encyclopaedia and the house of Scribner & Armstrong, of New York, formed a plan to issue in this country an edition of the Encyclopaedia, to compete with the reprint of Stoddart, by striking off sheets from the original stereotype plates and engravings of the Scotch edition and sending them to this country to be bound and sold by subscription, on substantially the same plan as that which had been adopted by Stoddart to put his reprint into circulation.

Sometime in May, 1878, Scribner & Armstrong commenced negotiations with Warren, which resulted in a contract between them, dated May 14, 1878, by which they constituted him their agent, with the exclusive right to sell, until its publication was completed, their edition of the Encyclopaedia within the same territory substantially as that mentioned in the contract between Stoddart and Warren, and agreed to furnish him with copies of the Encyclopaedia at prices therein named. He stipulated on his part that from and after the date of the contract he would not canvass for any other Encyclopaedia, or any other edition of any Encyclopaedia, but that he 'should have the privilege of completing orders already taken for the reprint edition of Stoddart to all subscribers therefor.'

After the making of this contract Warren refused to canvass further for Stoddart's reprint edition. Whereupon Stoddart refused to furnish him, except for cash on delivery, the books with which to fill the orders which he had obtained for Stoddart's reprint edition.

Upon this point the evidence was as follows: On June 5, 1878, Warren sent an order to Stoddart requesting him to forward a certain number of books to be furnished subscribers, to which Stoddart replied by letter, dated June 6, 1878, that 'as to all future orders, for the present they will be filled when cash accompanies the orders.'

On June 10, 1878, Warren wrote to Stoddart as follows: 'I am desirous of delivering reprint fast as possible on my orders heretofore taken for same. If my orders for stock are filled they shall be paid for according to contract. Do you intend to fill my orders on that basis?'

To this letter Stoddart replied by telegraph as follows: 'Will fill order when cash is received in accordance with our letter of June 6.' There is no evidence that Stoddart ever refused to fill a cash order; nor was it pretended that Warren, after that date, ever sent an order to Stoddart with the cash to pay for the books ordered.

After the refusal of Stoddart to supply Warren with the books except for cash, the latter induced 1,253 of the subscribers to Stoddart's reprint edition to exchange the subscription to the reprint for a subscription to the Scotch edition,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
117 cases
  • Roy v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 18 Diciembre 1934
    ... ... Baltimore , 75 U.S. 377, 8 Wall. 377, 387, 19 L.Ed. 463; ... United States v. Smith , 94 U.S. 214, 218, 24 L.Ed ... 115; Warren v. Stoddart , 105 U.S. 224, 229, 26 L.Ed ... 1117, 1120; United States v. United States Fidelity & G ... Co. , 236 U.S. 512, 526, 35 S.Ct. 298, ... ...
  • Peay v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 1898
    ...the telegram. Even if defendant was negligent, it was plaintiff's duty to make reasonable exertions to save himself from loss. 105 U.S. 224, 229; 105 U.S. 709; 80 878; 75 Ala. 168; 2 Greenl Ev. § 267; note 3; 9 Ark. 394, 401, 402 and 403; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 51. (3) Even if the complaint proper......
  • Lillard v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 17 Diciembre 1904
    ...could not, with reasonable expense and exertion, prevent. Lawrence v.Porter, 63 F. 63, 65, 11 C.C.A. 27, 26 L.R.A. 167; Warren v. Stoddart, 105 U.S. 224, 26 L.Ed. 1117; Wicker v. Hoppock, 6 Wall. 94, 99, 18 L.Ed. 752. case the contract breached is one of bargain and sale, the rule of damage......
  • United States v. Russell Electric Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 15 Noviembre 1965
    ...by the other party if they could have been avoided with reasonable effort and without undue risk or expense. See Warren v. Stoddart, 1882, 105 U.S. 224, 26 L.Ed. 1117; W. B. Moses & Sons v. Lockwood, 1924, 54 App. D.C. 115, 295 F. 936, 33 A.L.R. 1467; McQuagge v. United States, W.D.La., 196......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT