J. Thompson & Sons Mfg. Co. v. Perkins

Decision Date10 April 1896
Citation66 N.W. 874,97 Iowa 607
PartiesTHE J. THOMPSON & SONS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v. PERKINS & SON
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Appeal from Story District Court.--HON. B. P. BIRDSALL, Judge.

THE plaintiff is a manufacturing firm, at Beloit, Wis. In November, 1892, the defendant firm, doing business at Ames Iowa gave to one Baldwin, a traveling salesman for plaintiff a written order for agricultural implements, to be shipped to Ames, about February 14, 1893. The amount of the order, after the deduction of the value of one plow, was two hundred and thirty-six dollars and twenty-five cents. The written order contained numerous conditions, and was signed "Perkins & Son." After the signature is the following "Accepted subject to approval of J. Thompson & Sons Mfg Co. F. R. Baldwin, Salesman." About the first of February, 1893, the defendants countermanded the order, by letter, which the plaintiff disregarded, and it shipped the goods, which defendants refused to receive, and this action is to recover the purchase price. Defendants claim the right to countermand the order, because the contract had never been completed, by an acceptance of the order. The petition recites the facts, as to the giving of the order, the shipment of the implements, and other facts, and the following are the facts pleaded to show an acceptance. "The plaintiffs, by way of amendment to their petition herein, state, that at the time plaintiffs received the written order from the defendants, set out in the petition, to-wit. November 17, 1892, they accepted and approved said order and contract, and wrote Perkins & Son a postal card, addressed to them at Ames, Iowa as follows: 'Beloit, Wis., November 17. 1892. Perkins & Son, Ames, Iowa--Dear Sir: Your favor of the 12th received, with order given to our Mr. Baldwin. The above will have our earliest possible attention. We are, yours, truly, J. Thompson & Sons Mfg. Co.'" To the petition the defendants demurred, on several grounds, and among them, the failure of acceptance, which demurrer the court sustained, and, plaintiff electing to stand on the petition, judgment was entered against it for costs, and it appealed.

Affirmed.

Jordan & Brocket for appellant.

Dyer & Stevens for appellees.

OPINION

GRANGER, J.

I.

From appellant's argument it appears that the court below, in ruling on the demurrer, took the view that the only acts of approval of the order pleaded...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • J. Thompson & Sons Manuf'g Co. v. Perkins
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1896
    ... ... The amount of the order, after the deduction of the value of one plow, was $236.25. The written order contained numerous conditions, and was signed Perkins & Son. After the signature is the following: Accepted subject to approval of J. Thompsons & Sons Mfg. Co. F. R. Baldwin, Salesman. About the 1st of February, 1893, the defendants countermanded the order by letter, which the plaintiff disregarded, and shipped the goods, which defendants refused to receive, and this action is to recover the purchase price. Defendants claim the right to countermand ... ...

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