Evans v. N. J. Weil & Co, (No. 575.)

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the CourtATKINSON
Citation83 S.E. 207,142 Ga. 429
PartiesROBSON & EVANS. v. N. J. WEIL & CO.
Docket Number(No. 575.)
Decision Date21 September 1914

83 S.E. 207
142 Ga. 429

ROBSON & EVANS.
v.
N. J. WEIL & CO.

(No. 575.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 21, 1914.


(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Contracts (§ 10*)—Sales (§ 22*)—Unilateral Contract—Offer to Buy—Right to Enforce.

N. J. Weil, trading under the name of N. J. Weil & Co., instituted suit against R. C. Robson and Samuel Evans, trading as partners under the firm name of Robson & Evans, for breach of contract. The defendant filed a demurrer on general and special grounds, and excepted to the jndaraent overruling it. An answer was also filed. On the trial, after the conclusion of evidence introduced by both sides, the judge, on motion, directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for a stated sum as principal and specified interest, and entered judgment thereon. The defendant excepted. Two writings were set out in the petition, as follows:

"Chicago, Dec. 14, 1909. "Dear Sirs: We have this day bought from N. J. Weil & Co., Chicago, 111.:

Article. Delivery. Average. Price.

50000 D. S. extra ribs b/oJany. 30/40 at 13oo CAP and carrying charges of 10 cts. per 100 lbs. additional each month or part thereof. The buyer agrees to deposit with the seller 1/2 ct. per lb. as security for performance of the contract, and, in case of decline in market, such further amount as may be necessary to protect the contract, % ct. per lb. below the market. Subject to the rules of the Board of Trade of Chicago. Robson & Evans."

"Chicago, March 4, 1910. "Dear Sirs: We have this day bought from N. J. Weil & Co., Chicago, 111.:

Article. Delivery. Average. Price.

25000 # DS extra Ribs B/O March 30/33 13.50 CAF and 10 cts. per 100# for each additional month or part of month as carrying charge. The buyer agrees to deposit with them % cent per pound as security for performance of contract, and, in case of decline in market such further amount as may be required to keep contract protected 1/2 cent per pound. Subject to the rules of the Board of Trade Chicago.

"Robson & Evans.

"R. C. Robson."

It was alleged in the petition, as amended, that, by the terms of these writings, Robson & Evans contracted with petitioner to purchase designated quantities of described meat at stated prices per pound. "At the same time and under the same contract, said Robson & Evans agreed to pay a carrying charge of 10 cents per 100 pounds each month thereafter while said merchandise was kept in the possession of the plaintiff; the said Robson & Evans having the right to order out the same or any part thereof at any time at their option." Petitioner held the meat, under the terms of the contract, subject to the order of Robson & Evans, as is specified in the first writing, until October 4, 1910, and the meat, as specified in the second writing, until October 12, 1910, holding the same from the date of the respective writings, subject to the order of Robson & Evans. On the dates last mentioned, Robson & Evans having failed and refused to pay for the meat in accordance with the terms of the contract, petitioner, after having, on September 20, 1910, advised defendants of his intention to do so, sold the meat in open market in the city of Chicago, Ellsworth & Cross of that city becoming the purchasers at the highest and best price obtainable at that time. Before Robson & Evans made any effort or expressed any intention to repudiate the writing, and before petitioner resold the meat or notified the defendants of the intention to do so, they, in pursuance of the writings above set forth, paid petitioner the sum of $625, and the "payment was by plaintiff credited on the contract price of said meat." The price, at the time the meat was sold, was less than the contract price, and the amount sought to be recovered was the sum representing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Taylor v. Taylor, No. 21219
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 13 Junio 1961
    ...as freely as if he had affixed his signature to the same. Brown v. Bowman, 119 Ga. 153, 46 S.E. 410; Robson & Evans v. M. J. Weil & Co., 142 Ga. 429, 83 S.E. 207; Hudson v. State, 14 Ga.App. 490, 81 S.E. 3. The plaintiff in error insists that the petition was subject to general demurrer for......
  • Fenner v. Boykin
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • 22 Enero 1925
    ...cases, see Stewart v. Postal Telegraph Co., 131 Ga. 31, 61 S. E. 1045, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 692, 127 Am. St. Rep. 205; Robson v. Weil, 142 Ga. 429, 83 S. E. 207. In Terry v. International Cotton Co., 138 Ga. 656, 75 S. E. 1044. Civil Code, § 4258, which contains section 2 of this statute, is......
  • Allen v. Sams, (Nos. 14420, 14421, 14434.)
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 10 Diciembre 1923
    ...keep it "margined" does not alter this conclusion. A contract containing such a feature was held prima facie good in Robson v. Weil, 142 Ga. 429, 83 S. E. 207. See, also, Virginia Bridge Co. v. Crafts, 2 Ga. App. 126 (3), 58 S. E. 322. Where the illegality of a contract does not appear upon......
  • Martin v. Citizens' Bank Of Marshallville, No. 9483.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 15 Noviembre 1933
    ...Morehead & Co. v. Postal Telegraph Co., 131 Ga. 31, 61 S. E. 1045, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.), 692, 127 Am. St. Rep. 205; Robson v. Weil & Co., 142 Ga. 429 (2), 83 S. E. 207; Kilpatrick v. Richter, 146 Ga. 277, 91 S. E. 51; Forsyth Mfg. Co. v. Castlen, supra. But the evidence did not tend to show ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Taylor v. Taylor, No. 21219
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 13 Junio 1961
    ...as freely as if he had affixed his signature to the same. Brown v. Bowman, 119 Ga. 153, 46 S.E. 410; Robson & Evans v. M. J. Weil & Co., 142 Ga. 429, 83 S.E. 207; Hudson v. State, 14 Ga.App. 490, 81 S.E. 3. The plaintiff in error insists that the petition was subject to general demurrer for......
  • Fenner v. Boykin
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia
    • 22 Enero 1925
    ...cases, see Stewart v. Postal Telegraph Co., 131 Ga. 31, 61 S. E. 1045, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 692, 127 Am. St. Rep. 205; Robson v. Weil, 142 Ga. 429, 83 S. E. 207. In Terry v. International Cotton Co., 138 Ga. 656, 75 S. E. 1044. Civil Code, § 4258, which contains section 2 of this statute, is......
  • Allen v. Sams, (Nos. 14420, 14421, 14434.)
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 10 Diciembre 1923
    ...keep it "margined" does not alter this conclusion. A contract containing such a feature was held prima facie good in Robson v. Weil, 142 Ga. 429, 83 S. E. 207. See, also, Virginia Bridge Co. v. Crafts, 2 Ga. App. 126 (3), 58 S. E. 322. Where the illegality of a contract does not appear upon......
  • Martin v. Citizens' Bank Of Marshallville, No. 9483.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 15 Noviembre 1933
    ...Morehead & Co. v. Postal Telegraph Co., 131 Ga. 31, 61 S. E. 1045, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.), 692, 127 Am. St. Rep. 205; Robson v. Weil & Co., 142 Ga. 429 (2), 83 S. E. 207; Kilpatrick v. Richter, 146 Ga. 277, 91 S. E. 51; Forsyth Mfg. Co. v. Castlen, supra. But the evidence did not tend to show ......
  • 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