Beckwith v. Talbot
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | 95 U.S. 289,24 L.Ed. 496 |
| Parties | BECKWITH v. TALBOT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Colorado
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William H. Phillips for the plaintiff in error.
No counsel appeared for the defendant in error.
This was an action brought by Talbot against George C. Beckwith in the District Court of Colorad for the County of Fremont, to recover damages for the breach of a contract alleged to have been made on the 7th of October, 1870, between the plaintiff and two others on the one part, and the defendant on the other, whereby they were to herd and care for a large herd of cattle for the defendant, from that time until the fifth day of December, 1872, for which he was to give them one-half of what the cattle and their increase should then bring over, $36,681.60; that is, to each one-third of such half. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff and the two persons who entered into the contract together with him (who were the sons of the defendant) performed their part of it, but that the defendant refused to sell the cattle, or to pay the plaintiff his share of their value above the said sum.
On the trial, two defences were relied on which are made the subject of assignments of error here: First, that the alleged contract was void but the Statute of Frauds, because, though not to be performed within a year, it was not in writing signed by the defendant; secondly, that it was a joint contract on which the plaintiff could not maintain a separate action.
The territorial Statute of Frauds declares that 'every agreement which by its terms is not to be performed within a year unless some note or memorandum thereof be in writing and subscribed by the party chargeable therewith, shall be void.' The verbal difference between this statute and that of Charles II. is not material in this case.
It appeared on the trial that the agreement made by the parties was committed to writing at the defendant's instance, and was in the following words, to wit:——
'WET MOUNTAIN VALLEY, Oct. 7, 1870.
'This is to certify that the undersigned have taken two thousand two hundred and five head of cattle, valued at $36,681.60 on shares from George C. Beckwith; time to expire on the fifth day of December, 1872; then George C. Beckwith to sell the cattle and retain the amount the cattle are valued at above. Of the amount the cattle sell at over and above the said valuation, George C. Beckwith to retain one half, and the other half to be equally divided between C. W. Talbot, and Elton T. Beckwith, and Edwin F. Beckwith.
(Signed) 'C. W. TALBOT.
'ELTON T. BECKWITH.
'EDWIN F. BECKWITH.'
This agreement was signed by the plaintiff and the two young Beckwiths, but was not signed by the defendant. It was delivered to him, however, and was kept by him until he produced and proved it on the trial. It was conceded by both parties that this was the agreement under which the services of the plaintiff were performed.
Two letters written by the defendant to the plaintiff on the subject-matter of the contract, and whilst he had the said agreement in his possession, and whilst it was being executed by the plaintiff, namely, one on the 21st of September, 1872, and the other on the 10th of November, 1872, were also produced in evidence; from which the following are extracts:——
'DENVER, Sept. 21, 1872.
'MR. TALBOT, SIR,—On my arrival from the mountains, I received your letter. As I have wrote you before, every day I see parties here that is offering their cattle very low. . . . I have used every exertion for the last three months to sell. . . .
'You suggest giving you a part of the cattle. That is entirely outside of the agreement. Also, where would be the interest on the amount put in the cattle coming from? And also Elton and Edwin would be glad to do the same; but at that rate I would not get my money back I put into the cattle.
'The cattle must be sold and settled up according to the agreement. I will do every thing I can to sell at the best advantage, and you shall have every chance to get a purchaser for the cattle so as to make the most out of them. . . .
'You shall have no chance to complain in my keeping up to the agreement, as I shall strictly, although I have heard you have made complaints to parties, which I think is very unfair, and the parties you told so said so too . . .
'Yours re pectfully,
GEORGE C. BECKWITH.'
'DENVER, Nov. 10, 1872.
'MR. TALBOT, SIR,—At first I thought it useless to answer your letter, as I am bound by the agreement to sell the cattle in a very short time . . . I notified you to get a purchaser for the cattle months ago; and what have I received from you in return and for my pay? I must say I have never been treated so meanly by a man in my life. My rights was to sell the cattle. Does the agreement say that I was to say any thing to you or any one else?
'But what next? You quarrelled with me because I would not break the agreement and give you the cattle to sell at figures less than I had kept them in Denver for sale. Now, I have been offered $31,000 for the cattle. I have written to Edwin, and he will state to you what I wrote him to say to you.
'Yours, in haste,
GEORGE C. BECKWITH.'
We agree with the Supreme Court of Colorado that, in the face of this evidence, produced by the defendant himself, he cannot deny the validity of the agreement. His letters are a clear recognition of it. In them he refers to 'the agreement' again and again. He declares his intention to adhere to it, and to hold the plaintiff to it. What agreement could he possibly refer to but the only one which, so far as appears, was ever made: the one which he took...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Company
...for more than 100 years. It was allowed in Browne v. Steck, (1873) 2 Colo. 70, and Beckwith v. Talbot, (1875) 2 Colo. 639, aff'd 95 U.S. 289, 24 L.Ed. 496.8 Browne v. Steck was a suit for failure to pay money when due, and the parties had agreed to an interest rate of ten percent per month.......
-
Ideal Structures Corp. v. Levine Huntsville Develop. Corp.
...the documents and to establish the acquiescence, of the party to be charged, to the contents of the one unsigned. See Beckwith v. Talbot, 95 U.S. 289, 24 L.Ed. 496; Oliver v. Hunting, 44 Ch. pp. 205, 208-209; see, also, 2 Corbin, op. cit., §§ 512-518; cf. Restatement, Contracts, § 208, subd......
-
Woodworth v. Franklin
...contract, and so connected with each other that they may be fairly said to constitute one paper relating to the contract. Beckwith v. Talbot, 95 U.S. 289, 24 L. Ed. 496; Ryan v. U. S., 136 U.S. 68, 34 L. Ed. 447, 10 S. Ct. 913; Bibb v. Allen, 149 U.S. 481, 37 L. Ed. 819, 13 S. Ct. 950. But ......
-
Kwan v. Schlein
...law. Moreover, the cases Kwan cites—Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 N.Y. 48, 110 N.E.2d 551 (1953); Beckwith v. Talbot, 95 U.S. 289, 5 Otto 289, 24 L.Ed. 496 (1877)—regard the parol evidence rule and do not advance her argument. Though parol evidence is admissible "to portray t......
-
Colorado's Prejudgment Interest Statute: Potential for Market Rate Interest
...117 Utah 494, 217 P.2d 571 (1950). See generally, 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages§ 179 (1965). 5. Beckwith v. Talbot, 2 Colo. 639 (1875), aff'd, 95 U.S. 289 (1877); Browne v. Steck, 2 Colo. 70 (1873); Close v. Riddle, 40 Or. 592, 67 P. 932 (1902); Bennett v. Federal Coal & Coke Co., 70 W.Va. 456, 74 S......
-
Rates of Interest on State and Federal Court Judgments: an Update
...836 (1918); Omaha & Grant Smelting & Refining Co. v. Tabor, 13 Colo. 41. 21 P. 925 (1889); Beckwith v. Talbot, 2 Colo. 639 (1875), aff'd 95 U.S. 289 (1877); Browne v. Steck, 2 Colo. 70 (1873). 35. See, Davis Cattle Co., Inc., supra, note 34. This month's column was written by Elizabeth A. M......