Iselin v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 291,291 |
| Citation | 271 U.S. 136,70 L.Ed. 872,46 S.Ct. 458 |
| Parties | ISELIN et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Dallas S. Townsend, of New York City, for appellants.
The appellants, partners as William Iselin & Co., sued the United States for $30,000 for breach of a warranty of quality in a sale to them by the United States of airplane linen. On January 15, 1920, the United States, through the Materials Disposal and Salvage Division of the office of the Director of Air Service, advertised for bids for 168,400 yards of aircraft linen, to be submitted February 2, 1920. The bidders were to be notified February 5th of the yardage awarded, and were then to forward a check for 10 per cent. of the purchase price, remainder within 30 days. The advertisement also stated that the materials would be sold 'as is' at points of storage, that inspection was invited, that specifications and quantities on hand were based upon best information available, but that no guaranty on behalf of the government was given.
The representative of the appellants at New York on February 2, 1920, after seeing the advertisement, sent the following letter to the Salvage Division, office of the Director of Air Service, Washington:
Under date of February 10th, there was sent to the plaintiff's representative the following communication from the New York office of the Salvage Division:
'This is to advise you that Washington has awarded you 150,400 yards of 38-inch grade A airplane linen at 93 cents per yard. This linen is listed on sheet No. 3955, item 1-65,400 yards, and sheet No. 2879, item 6-85,000 yards.
'2. Inasmuch as we have your check for $13,987.20 to cover 10 per cent. of the sale, it is requested that you send this office certified check for $125,884.30 to cover the balance due, together with your shipping directions.
'3. This check should be drawn in favor of 'Disbursing Officer, Air Service,' marking envelope for the attention of the Materials Disposal and Salvage Division, 360 Madison Ave., N. Y. C.
It does not appear, and it is not claimed, that there was any acceptance of appellant's bid February 2d otherwise than as embodied in the communication last above quoted.
Upon resale of the linen, and appellants found that it was not of the quality of 'firsts' and brought this suit. The linen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Centric-Jones Co. v. Hufnagel
...complete the contract.' " ' "); Goodwin v. Eller, 127 Colo. 529, 536-37, 258 P.2d 493, 496 (1953) (quoting Iselin v. United States, 271 U.S. 136, 46 S.Ct. 458, 70 L.Ed. 872 (1926) (" 'It is well settled that a proposal to accept, or an acceptance, upon terms varying from those offered, is a......
-
TerKeurst v. United States
...assent to one and the same thing and that there must be no substantial or material variance between them. Iselin v. United States, 271 U.S. 136, 46 S.Ct. 458, 70 L.Ed. 872 (1926). In the present case the portion of the contract entitled "Acceptance For The Forest Service," substantially and......
-
Stern v. Lieberman
...119 N.E. 698;Lawrence v. Rosenberg, 238 Mass. 138, 130 N.E. 189;Lubell v. Rome, 243 Mass. 13, 136 N.E. 607;Iselin v. United States, 271 U.S. 136, 139, 46 S.Ct. 458, 70 L.Ed. 872. The action of the judge is supported by the evidence which could be found to show that the parties did not inten......
-
Shea v. Second Nat. Bank, 8234.
...Rolling Mill Co., 119 U.S. 149, 152, 7 S.Ct. 168, 30 L.Ed. 376; Potts v. Whitehead, 23 N.J.Eq. 512, 514; Iselin v. United States, 271 U.S. 136, 139, 46 S.Ct. 458, 70 L. Ed. 872. 6 Strong v. Moore, 105 Or. 12, 22, 207 P. 179, 182, 23 A.L.R. 1217: "Whether or not the tenders relied upon by th......