J.A. Coates & Sons v. Early
| Decision Date | 17 March 1896 |
| Parties | J. A. COATES & SONS, Limited, v. EARLY. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Darlington county; Norton Judge.
Action by J. A. Coates & Sons, Limited, against B. A. Early for the price of goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Woods & Spain, for appellant.
Boyd & Brown, for respondent.
This cause came on to be heard before Judge Norton and a jury at the October, 1894, term of the court of common pleas for Darlington county, in this state. The verdict of the jury was for the plaintiff and, after entry thereon of the judgment the defendant appealed to this court on numerous grounds. Preparatory to their consideration by us, a statement of the facts underlying the controversy is deemed proper. The plaintiff is a corporation under the laws of the state of New York, and, as such, is engaged in the manufacture for sale of needles, pins, etc., and has been so engaged about 5 years. The defendant is a merchant of 25 years' experience located about six miles out from the town of Darlington, in the state of South Carolina. Some time in the early part of the year 1893, the plaintiff sent, by mail, to the defendant a sample copy of needle cards, together with a circular letter which fully described the goods, and stated the price,-three cents per card, and also, at the same time, inclosed a blank order blank for the defendant to fill in, sign, and return to the plaintiff if he desired to order the goods. The following is a copy of the sample copy of needle cards, with blanks filled by defendant:
This card was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 29th of April, 1893. The defendant retained the sample card and circular letter which plaintiff had sent to him in the first instance. On the 17th day of July, 1893, the plaintiff, having manufactured the goods, and had printed the 5,000 Owl Brand needle cards, to each of which cards were attached 7 large needles for darning, wool work, etc., and also a paper of needles containing 25 hand-sewing needles, and on each card was printed the advertisement of the defendant, as designated in his order, forwarded the same by steamship to the defendant, and by the same mail sent forward an account therefor, amounting to $150. When the defendant received the goods at his place of business, he would not open the two boxes in which they were shipped, but stowed them away in his warehouse, refusing to pay for the same, alleging that he had only intended to order 5,000 needles, whereas the plaintiff had sent him 25 times that quantity. Hence the suit. The plaintiff, at the trial, offered testimony to the effect that the defendant and its officers had never seen each other, but that all their arrangements were made by correspondence; that this Owl Brand needle card, with needles and advertisement of the business of the purchaser, was one of their special features; that the circular letter fully explained everything connected with each card, showing that 7 large needles and 25 small needles were sold with each card, as attached thereto, which was fully explained in the circular letter; and the plaintiff produced a copy of such circular letter before the court, which, it is admitted in the case for appeal, fully answered all these allegations. The defendant admitted the receipt of the goods, and his signature to the order, and that he himself filled out all the blanks in the order, and prepared the advertisement printed on the cards; but, when he wished to prove, by the defendant himself, that the reason he did not open the boxes containing the goods was because they represented about 25 times the amount of goods he had ordered, on objection, the judge presiding ruled:
"The circular letter offering to sell needle cards was addressed to this defendant, and also was sent a circular letter illustrating what was meant by needle cards. The defendant then wrote to the plaintiff, saying that he would accept the terms offered in the circular, and that he would take so many of the goods that were offered to him in the circular. That, as I understand it, was revocable, so long as the order had not been filled, and as the goods had not been shipped; but, when the goods were shipped, completing the contract between the defendant and the plaintiff, then the contract became irrevocable. Now, the question presented is whether the term 'needle cards' is or is not of dubious meaning. That is the first question, as I understand it, that is raised. The plaintiff, so far as the testimony goes now, has shown no disposition to conceal from the defendant what was meant by 'needle card'. It is not disputed that the goods were furnished, and that they complied with the sample as sent. It is not alleged that each card did not contain what it was represented to contain in accordance with the terms of the circular. I see no punctuation between 'needle' and 'cards'; but it is all, it seems to me, upon examination of the paper, just as clearly expressed to be an order for 5,000 needle cards. The next objection, as I understand it, is that the order is rendered ambiguous by reason of the designation of the kinds of cards to be sent. On examination of the paper, I do not see that the plain order above is rendered ambiguous by reason of the further filling in of the kind of needles to be sent. Now, it is argued that, because it is the custom of merchants to order needles by the thousand, therefore, the order is rendered ambiguous. But it is competent to order needles by the dozen or by the thousand, or in any other way that parties choose to order them; and, when there is a specific contract, then that specific contract will vary any custom, and it is binding on the parties that make the special contract. Mr. Woods: As I understood your honor's ruling, you mean that we could not introduce any evidence to change that contract at all. The Court: No, sir; I think not. Mr. Woods: As I further understood your honor, we could not submit, under your honor's ruling, the question as to whether there was a meeting of the minds of the parties. The Court: No, sir; under the testimony, so far as developed in any of the issues, you could not submit that question to the jury. Mr. Woods: Would your honor instruct the jury to find a verdict? The Court: If you admit the facts as stated now, I would instruct them. Mr. Woods: I propose to undertake to prove, by Mr. Early, in the first place, that, this paper having been sent to him, he filled it out in this manner, supposing that he was ordering, in the usual custom of merchants, 5,000 needles. I propose to show, by Mr. Early, further, that the paper appearing on its face that was an ambiguity on it;...
To continue reading
Request your trial