Haarstick v. Fox
Decision Date | 05 June 1893 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | HENRY C. HAARSTICK, RESPONDENT, v. MOYLAN C. FOX, EXECUTOR, APPELLANT |
APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the third district and from an order refusing a new trial, Hon. Charles S. Zane judge.
The whole correspondence shown in evidence between deceased and plaintiff was as follows: Dec. 31, 1889, Mrs. McKibben to Haarstick: "As I think I may wish to dispose of the Miss. Valley Trans. Co. stock, will you be so kind as to inform me if there is a market for such stock and what the market value." Jan. 2, 1890, Haarstick to Mrs. McKibben Jan. 10, 1890, Mrs. McKibben to Haarstick: Jan. 27 1890, Mrs. McKibben to Haarstick: Feb. 5, 1890, Haarstick to Mrs. McKibben Feb. 1, 1890, Haarstick to Mrs. McKibben, a letter making no mention of the stock. Feb. 7, 1890, Haarstick to Mrs. McKibben, a letter containing no mention of the stock. Feb. 10, 1890, Mrs. McKibben to Haarstick: Feb. 19, 1890, Haarstick to Mrs. McKibben, the letter set out in the opinion. Feb. 25, 1890, Mrs. McKibben to Haarstick, the letter set out in the opinion; and March 1, 1890, Haarstick to Mrs. McKibben, the letter set out in the opinion.
The court found the following facts: That the sale for $ 92,500 was complete by the letters dated February 25, 1890, and March 1, 1890, and that the stock on April 10, 1890, was of the value of $ 104,500 and plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $ 12,000, with interest, besides other facts necessary to support the judgment.
Affirmed.
Messrs. Bennett, Marshall and Bradley, for the appellant.
The contention of plaintiff that an uncommunicated assent completed the contract is supported by the weight of authority in this country, but not by the best reasoned authority. Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway, 2 App. Cas. 688; Telegraph Co. v. Colson, L. R. 6 Exch. Cas. 108, Reedpath's Case, L. R. 11 Eq. Cas. 86; McCullough v. Insurance Co., 1 Pick. 278, Langdell on Contracts (2 Ed.) 989-996. A confidential relation existed between the parties, because stock holder and director. The contrary view is supported by two cases. Carpenter v. Danforth, 52 Bart. 581, and Tippecanoe Co. v. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509. The first case is criticised and disapproved in Perry's note to 1 Story Eq. Jur., sec. 229 (12 Ed.) But this case is differentiated from those two cases by the fact that there was a special confidence reposed. Tate v. Williamson, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 55; Mallory v. Leach, 35 Vt. 156 (82 Am. Dec. 625).
The court erred in failing to find upon the issue of fraud tendered in the answer. Peo v. Forbes, 51 Cal. 628, 2 Comp. Laws 1888, sec. 3379, Hayne on New Trial, 718-722; Campbell v. Buckman, 49 Cal. 367; Railway Co. v. Reynolds, 50 Cal. 93; Dowd v. Clarke, 51 Cal. 263; Everson v. Mayhew, 57 Cal. 144.
Messrs. Richards, Moyle and Richards, and Messrs. Brown and Henderson, for the respondent.
The record in this case presents the following facts: Joab Lawrence died testate, December 28, 1888, being at the time of his death the owner of 1,414 shares of the capital stock of the St. Louis & Mississippi Valley Transportation Company, a Missouri corporation. His widow and devisee thereafter remarried, and became Sarah McKibben. The plaintiff was president of the transportation company, an acquaintance of Joab Lawrence and Mrs. McKibben, and who assisted her in other matters of business in St. Louis, when requested, and who offered his services to her in any matter of business connected with the ascertainment of the true signature of Mr. Lawrence, as a friendly act, but without any compensation. The plaintiff resided in St. Louis; had been president of the transportation company since its organization, in 1881, and was reasonably familiar with its business and finances. The stock of the company was not listed on any stock exchange; had a market in St. Louis alone, and among those acquainted with the business of the company. Mrs. McKibben resided in New York. In the months of January and February, 1890, the financial condition of the transportation company was good, and its business reasonably prosperous, although in the latter month it met with a serious loss, in the sinking of the Port Eads, a steamer towing its barges. The plaintiff's witnesses swear that on March 10, 1890, stock in the transportation company was worth from $ 65 to $ 70 per share, and on April 10, 1890, from $ 75 to $ 80 per share. On June 21, 1890, the company paid a dividend of 6 per cent., or $ 6 per share, on its capital stock, which was the highest dividend ever paid by it, with the exception of one of equal amount in 1884.
On December 31, 1889, Mrs. McKibben, then residing in New York, wrote to plaintiff, at St. Louis, that she might wish to dispose of the transportation company stock, asking if there was a market for it, and what the market value of the stock was. On January 2, 1890, the plaintiff replied On January 10, 1890, Mrs. McKibben replied that the "captain" (her late husband, Joab Lawrence) always quoted the stock at par, and she might conclude not to sell. On January 27, 1890, she again wrote to plaintiff concerning other business, concluding as follows: On February 5, 1890, the plaintiff replied, answering her former letter, and concluding as follows: On February 10, 1890, Mrs. McKibben wrote plaintiff as follows:
On February 19, 1890, plaintiff wrote Mrs. McKibben, in substance, that the transportation company had met with a On February 25, 1890, Mrs. McKibben wrote plaintiff as follows: On March 1, 1890, plaintiff wrote Mrs. McKibben as follows: etc.
This letter of March 1st reached Salt Lake City, where Mrs McKibben then was, on March 4, 1890. Mrs. McKibben died on the morning of March 5, 1890, having been unconscious for 24 hours before her death, and she never saw the letter. After her death this letter came into the hands of her administrator and son-in-law, the defendant. The defendant also found inclosed in another letter directed to her a newspaper account of the loss of the Port Eads, although plaintiff denies...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chenery Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Com'n
...Seltzer, 227 Pa. 410, 76 A. 77, 136 Am.St.Rep. 896; Fisher v. Budlong, 10 R.I. 525; Deaderick v. Wilson, Tenn., 8 Baxt. 108; Haarstick v. Fox, 9 Utah 110, 33 P. 251; O'Neile v. Ternes, 32 Wash. 528, 73 P. 692; Voellmeck v. Harding, 166 Wash. 93, 6 P.2d 373; Poole v. Camden, 79 W.Va. 310, 92......
-
Stout v. Cunningham
...106 Am. St. 170, 74 N.E. 445; Crowell v. Jackson, 53 N.J.L. 656, 23 A. 426; Krumbhaar v. Griffiths, 151 Pa. 223, 25 A. 64; Haarstick v. Fox, 9 Utah 110, 33 P. 251; Stark v. Soule, 126 N.Y. 628; 27 N.E. 410; In Liquidation of Shreveport Nat. Bank, 118 La. 664, 43 So. 270; Walsh v. Goulden, 1......
-
Bowers v. Cottrell
...the case as plead by the answer, such findings are sufficient. (Fox v. Haarstick, 156 U.S. 674, 15 S.Ct. 457, 39 L.Ed. 576; Haarstick v. Fox, 9 Utah 110, 33 P. 251; v. Brison, 90 Cal. 323, 27 P. 186; Maxfield v. West, 6 Utah 327, 23 P. 754; Maynard v. Locomotive etc. Assn., 14 Utah 458, 47 ......
-
Billings v. Parsons
... ... 1 Enc. Pl. & Prac. p ... 621. "Even on material issues, a failure to find further ... facts is not reversible error, if, when found, they must ... necessarily have been adverse to the appellant, and when ... those already found are sufficient to support the ... judgment." Haarstick v. Fox, 9 Utah ... 110, 33 P. 251; Fox v. Haarstick, 156 U.S ... 674, 39 L.Ed. 576, 15 S.Ct. 457; Groome v. Ogden ... City, 10 Utah 54, 37 P. 90; Maynard v ... Locomotive Engineers, 16 Utah 145, 51 P. 259 ... Upon a ... motion being made before the court to correct the date of ... ...