Briggs v. Logan Iron & Steel Co.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1923
• Docket Number: 143
• Citation: 276 Pa. 326,120 A. 280
• Parties: Briggs et al., Appellants, v. Logan Iron & Steel Co
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

120 A. 280

276 Pa. 326

Briggs et al., Appellants, v. Logan Iron & Steel Co

No. 143

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 29, 1923

Argued January 10, 1923

Appeal, No. 143, Jan. T., 1923, by plaintiff, from judgment of C.P. No. 4, Phila. Co., June T., 1922, No. 832, for defendant on pleadings, in case of Briggs & Turivas v. Logan Iron & Steel Co. Reversed.

Assumpsit for breach of contract of sale. Before McCULLEN, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Judgment for defendant on pleadings. Plaintiffs appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was judgment, quoting record.

The judgment of the court below is reversed and a procedendo awarded.

Lewis Lawrence Smith, with him George Vaughan Strong, for appellant. -- The correspondence does not show that no contract was entered into between the parties.

There was a sufficient memorandum in writing to satisfy the requirements of the Sales Act: Haines v. Dearborn, 199 Pa. 474; Sylvester v. Born, 132 Pa. 467; Hewes v. Taylor, 70 Pa. 387.

A memorandum required by the statute of frauds may be on different papers if one contains a reference to the other and in such case parol evidence is admissible to identify the writings: Curry v. Bacharach Quality Shops, Inc., 271 Pa. 364; Sober v. Masters, 264 Pa. 582; Title G & S. Co. v. Lippincott, 252 Pa. 112.

Wm Clark Mason, with him Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for appellee, cited: Manufacturers L. & H. Co. v. Lamp, 269 Pa. 517; Frick v. Ry., 271 Pa. 536; Northwestern C. Milling Co. v. Campbell, 78 Pa.Super. 96.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE SIMPSON:

Plaintiffs sued to recover damages for the breach of an oral agreement, whereby they contracted to sell and defendant to buy a quantity of manufactured iron, on specified terms. Attached to the statement of claim were certain letters, severally written by each party, regarding the contract. Defendant filed an affidavit of defense, raising two questions of law: (1st) Was a contract actually made? and (2d) If so, was it enforceable under the fourth section of the Sales Act?

The court below did not consider the alleged oral agreement or the effect of the statute, but held that the letters, attached to the statement, showed there was not a completed contract, and entered judgment for defendant; from this plaintiffs appeal. In testing the right to this summary judgment, a court's only duty is to determine "whether upon the facts averred [the statement of claim] shows, as a question of law, that plaintiff is not entitled to recover": Rhodes v. Terheyden, 272 Pa. 397; Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Lykens Mercantile Co., 274 Pa. 206. Thus viewed, it is clear the judgment must be reversed.

The fundamental error of the court below was in treating the case as if the contract was alleged to have been made by the confirmatory letters. The statement of claim avers, however, that the agreement was oral; upon this plaintiffs must stand or fall; and by it alone, at this stage of the proceedings, their case must be judged. If the minds of the parties met in an oral agreement, it is a matter of indifference whether or not one or each desired later to change it, -- unless the other party assented thereto, which is not averred, -- or to have it reduced to writing and duly signed. Neither party to a completed contract can add to, subtract from, rescind or abandon it, without the consent of the other; if he attempts to do so, he makes himself liable, to that other, for any resulting damage.

It necessarily follows, so far as concerns the first question raised, that we need...