Hinchman v. Lincoln
Decision Date | 09 January 1888 |
Citation | 124 U.S. 38,31 L.Ed. 337,8 S.Ct. 369 |
Parties | HINCHMAN v. LINCOLN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Theo. F. H. Meyer and Wayne McVeagh, for plaintiff in error.
A. C. Brown, for defendant in error.
This is an action at law brought by Rufus P. Lincoln, a citizen of New York, against Charles S. Hinchman, a citizen of Pennsylvania, to recover $18,000 as the agreed price and value of certain securities, stocks, and bonds alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The sale is alleged to have taken place on July 8, 1882. It is set forth in the complaint that the plaintiff acquired title to the securities in question by purchase of one John R. Both well, subject to any claim Wells, Fargo & Co. had upon the same for advances made by them to or for the account of the said Bothwell; 'that thereafter this plaintiff paid to Wells, Fargo & Company the amount of their said advances, and took possession of said securities, stocks, and bonds; but stated to the above-named defendant that he was willing and would pay over to the Stormont Silver Mining Company, which company was a large creditor of the said Bothwell, and in which company said defendant was very largely interested, any surplus which he derived in any way from said securities, stocks, and bonds, after having reimbursed himself in the sum of about $26,000 and interest for advances theretofore made by him to and for the account of the said Bothwell.' The answer denied the alleged sale and delivery. The action was tried in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York by a jury. There was a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, on which judgment was rendered, to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted. A bill of exceptions sets out all the evi ence in the cause, together with the charge of the court, and the exceptions taken to its rulings. At the close of the testimony, defendant's counsel, among other things, requested the court to charge the jury 'that there is no evidence in the case of a completed sale of the securities to the defendant; and the plaintiff, therefore, cannot recover.' This request was refused, and an exception taken by the defendant. This raises the general question whether there was sufficient evidence in support of the plaintiff's case to justify the court in submitting it to the jury. The defense rested upon two propositions: (1) That there was no evidence of any agreement between the parties for a sale and purchase; and (2) that, if there were, the agreement was not in writing, and there had been no receipt and acceptance of the subject of the sale, or any part thereof, by the defendant; and that consequently the agreement was within the prohibition of the statute of frauds in New York.
In regard to the first branch of the defense, we think there was sufficient evidence of a verbal agreement between the parties for the sale of the securities at the price named. It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, having acquired title and possession to the securities previously belonging to Bothwell by paying off the advances due to Wells, Fargo & Co., agreed with the defendant, as representing the Stormont Silver Mining Company, to give to that company and other creditors of Clark and Bothwell the benefit of any surplus there might be after the payment of the amount due to the plaintiff. There is evidence tending to show that thereupon, a suggestion having been made that the defendant should purchase the securities from the plaintiff, it was agreed between them that the plaintiff would sell and the defendant would take them at the price of $18,000, and the next day at 3 o'clock was appointed as the time for a delivery. By way of explanation, and as having a bearing upon other items of evidence in the cause, it is proper to say that the defendant's tes- timony in denial of the fact of the agreement tends to the point that the proposed purchase by him was not in his individual capacity, but as the representative of the Stormont Silver Mining Company, of which he was one of the trustees, and was made conditional on his procuring the assent thereto of the other trustees. We assume, however, in the further consideration of the case, that the jury were warranted in finding the fact of a verbal agreement of sale as alleged by the plaintiff. The question as thus narrowed is whether there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury, of a receipt and acceptance by the defendant of the securities sold.
It appears that on July 8, 1882, in pursuance of the appointment made the day previous, the plaintiff handed the securities in question, at the office of the Stormont Silver Mining Company in New York, to Schuyler Van Rensselaer, who was the treasurer of that company, and took from him the following recipt:
'OFFICE OF STORMONT SILVER MINING COMPANY, NO. 2 NASSAU, COR, OR WALL STREET.
'NEW YORK, July 8, 1882.
'President, William S. Clark.
'Secretary, John R. Bothwell.
'Received of Dr. Rufus P. Lincoln the following certificates of stock on behalf of C. S. Hinchman, and to be delivered to him when he fulfills his contract with Dr. Lincoln to purchase said stocks for $18,000 for——
28,400 shares Stormont Silver M'g Co.
24,300 shares San Bruno Copper M'g Co.
800 shares Eagle Silver M'g Co.
500 shares Hite Gold Quartz M'g Co.
1,819 shares Starr Grove Silver M'g Co.
1,410 shares Menlo Gold Quartz Co., & order on Wells, Fargo & Co. for 45,000 shares Quartz Co.,
600 shares Satemo Gold Quartz Co.
100 shares N. Y. & Sea Beach R. R. Co.
Also $9,500 in first mortgage bonds of the Battle Mn. & Lewis R. R. Co.
'SCHUYLER VAN RENSSELAER.
'Witness: M. W. TYLER.'
The defendant was not present. The receipt, signed by Van Rensselaer, and which he gave to the plaintiff, was witnessed by M. W. Tyler, the plaintiff's attorney, and had been prepared by him. The securities mentioned therein are the same with those described in the complaint. For the purpose of proving the authority of Van Rensselaer to receive and receipt for the securities, some correspondence between the parties was put in evidence by the plaintiff, the material parts of which are as follows: On July 21, 1882, Tyler, as attorney for the plaintiff, wrote to the defendant as follows: On the same day the plaintiff wrote to the defendant as follows: In answer to this, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff from Philadelphia, July 22, 1882, as follows:
It is further in evidence that a short time after the date of Van Rensselaer's receipt, it was seen by the defendant, but he said or did nothing to repudiate it. Tyler also testifies that on July 20, 1882, he met the defendant, and had this conversation with him: 'I said to Mr. Hinchman that I had been looking for him for several days, and that I suppos d he knew we had delivered the securities—the Bothwell securities—to Mr. Van Rensselaer, as he had directed; and he said, 'Yes, that was all right and I said, 'Well, now, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coffin v. Bradbury
...... Shephered v. Pressey, 32 N.H. 57; Kerkhof v. Atlas Paper Co., 68 Wis. 674, 32 N.W. 766; Terney v. Doten, 70 Cal. 399, 11 P. 743; Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124 U.S. 38, 8 S.Ct. 369; Kirby v. Johnson, 22 Mo. 354; Bowers v. Anderson, 49 Ga. 143; Baker on Sales, c. 14; 1 Benjamin on ......
-
Rosenbaum v. Hayes
...is true, yet it is clear that there was no such change of possession as would pass the title between the parties on sale. Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124 U.S. 38; Shindler Houston, 1 N.Y. 261; Edwards v. Meadows, 71 Ala. 42; Hollenbeck v. Cochran, 20 Hun. 416. Any delivery upon the prairie on Augu......
-
Pugh v. Gressett
...123 Miss. 708, 25 R. C. L. 624; Mech. on Sales, sec. 376; Shindler v. Houston, 1 N.Y. 261, 49 Am. Dec. 316; Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124 U.S. 38, 8 S.Ct. 369, 31 L.Ed. 337. In case at bar there was neither delivery nor acceptance. In the case at bar, there is no suggestion that the lien of the ......
-
Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co.
......Ry. Co. v. Burwell, 57 Fla. 217, 48 So. 213;. Klein-Messner Co. v. Fair Waist & Dress Co., 217. A.D. 647, 216 N.Y.S. 174; Hinchman v. Lincoln, 124. U.S. 38, 8 S.Ct. 369, 31 L.Ed. 337; C. W. Hull Co. v. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 208 F. 260; Lauer. v. ......