Albright v. Stegeman Motorcar Co.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1919 |
| Citation | 170 N.W. 951,168 Wis. 557 |
| Parties | ALBRIGHT v. STEGEMAN MOTORCAR CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.
Action by Fred C. Albright against the Stegeman Motorcar Company. A judgment of the civil court of Milwaukee county for defendant was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The respondent is a manufacturer of motorcars and trucks at Milwaukee. On the 26th day of February, 1917, appellant ordered, in writing, from the respondent a motortruck, to be built according to specifications, and agreed to pay therefor the sum of $4,500. The order contained this clause:
“This proposal, if accepted, constitutes a contract, subject to the approval of the Stegeman Motorcar Company, at its offices in Milwaukee, and must be countersigned by an officer of the company to be valid and in force.”
The proposal was never so countersigned. Appellant, however, paid $450 at or about the time of signing of the order, which sum was accepted by the company. The company entered upon the building of the truck, and plaintiff and appellant, shortly after the giving of the order, secured employment in the factory of the company, and a great portion of his time was spent in work upon the truck which he had ordered. The order required the truck to be delivered on or about April 1st. It was not completed April 1st, nor for some time thereafter. On the 7th day of April appellant served written notice on the company that unless the truck was completed and delivered on the 25th day of April the order would be canceled. On the 11th day of April he served upon the company another notice that unless the truck was delivered, complete, April 30th, the order would be canceled. On the 7th day of May the truck had not been completed nor delivered. On that day a controversy took place between appellant and officers of the motorcar company because of the nondelivery of the truck, which resulted, according to respondent's testimony, in an agreement on the part of appellant that, if the truck should be delivered on the 12th of May, in lead paint, he would be satisfied. He was at that time working in the factory, and continued to work therein until the 10th day of May, when he left. At the same time he notified the company of his cancellation of the order for the truck. The company refused to accept or honor the cancellation, and, having completed the truck on the 12th day of May, as per the claimed agreement on the 7th, held plaintiff for the purchase price thereof.
According to the terms of the written order, $2,100 was to be paid at the time of delivery of the truck. On the 14th day of March, 1917, appellant having $500, which he did not want to retain in his possession, deposited the same with the Stegeman Motorcar Company, and took its receipt therefor, and on the same date deposited in like manner $1,150 more. Upon cancellation of the order for the truck, appellant demanded of the company the $1,650 so deposited, claiming that it held the same as bailee. The company refused to pay back the money, claiming that it had been paid to apply upon the purchase price of the truck.
Appellant thereupon commenced an action in the civil court of Milwaukee county to recover the $1,650 so deposited. The question litigated was whether the company held the money as bailee and was guilty of a conversion thereof by its refusal to return the same upon demand, or whether it had been paid by appellant to apply upon the purchase price of the truck.
The case was tried by the court without a jury. The court found that the plaintiff placed said sum of $1,650 with the defendant for safe-keeping, and that the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff converted the same to its own use, but that the motorcar company was entitled to have said sum offset against the amount then due it from appellant by reason of the completion of the truck, and rendered judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint. From this judgment plaintiff appealed to the circuit court for Milwaukee county, where the judgment was affirmed, and from the judgment of the circuit court, affirming the judgment of the civil court, plaintiff brings this appeal.
F. H. Gugel, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
N. L. Baker and W. J. Zimmers, both of Milwaukee, for respondent.
OWEN, J. (after stating the facts as above).
[1] Appellant contends that the judgment of the civil court should have been reversed, because there never was a valid contract for the manufacture and sale of the truck, for the reason that the written order therefor was never countersigned by an officer of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CG Schmidt Inc. v. Permasteelisa N. Am.
...of a contract even though they do not sign it, where their intention to do so is otherwise indicated. " Albright v. Stegeman Motor Car Co. (1919), 168 Wis. 557, 560, 170 N.W. 951, 952 (emphasis added). Nonetheless, despite its more liberal construction rules, the UCC "does not eliminate the......
-
BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Mini Works, LLC
...and that conduct must be conveyed by the offeree to the offeror.” Id. at 573, 566 P.2d at 1049 (citing Albright v. Stegeman Motorcar Co., 168 Wis. 557, 170 N.W. 951, 952 (1919) ).Here, when Ms. Sharaby signed and returned the acknowledgment, she understood that the dispute would be resolved......
-
Town of Brockway v. City of Black River Falls, 2004AP2916.
...of a contract, even if they do not sign it, when their intention to do so is otherwise indicated. See, e.g., Albright v. Stegeman Motor Car Co., 168 Wis. 557, 170 N.W. 951 (1919). However, these cases do not involve contracts with municipalities. If a city official does not have the authori......
-
U.S. Hoffman Machinery Corporation v. Harris
... ... to estop it from denying its acceptance of the order." ... Albright v. Stegeman Motor Car Company, reported in 168 Wis ... 557, 170 N.W. 951, 952, 19 A. L. R. 463, ... ...