Jones v. Janes
Decision Date | 28 June 1924 |
Docket Number | 24660 |
Citation | 156 La. 715,101 So. 116 |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Parties | JONES v. JANES |
Appeal from Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of West Carroll John R. McIntosch, Judge.
Suit by Julius P. Jones against Frank Janes. From a judgment dismissing the suit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
John M Munholland, of Monroe, and R. V. Reeves; of Oak Grove, for appellant.
George Wesley Smith, of Rayville, and M. H. O'Connell, of Oak Grove, for appellee.
This is a suit for damages resulting from an alleged breach of contract.
The defendant filed an exception of no right or cause of action, and, from a judgment maintaining the exception and dismissing the suit, plaintiff has appealed.
Defendant has answered the appeal, and prays that the judgment be affirmed.
The contract sued upon was executed at Oak Grove, La., April 24, 1920, and is in words and figures as follows:
There is error in the description of the land, but, as there is no dispute about the acreage or the quantity of merchantable timber thereon, the error of description will be ignored.
The plaintiff interprets his proposal in the agreement as an exclusive contract with him to cut, haul, and deliver all merchantable timber on the 960 acres of land described in the contract.
The petition alleges that there were 3,076,000 feet of standing merchantable timber on the total acreage, from the cutting and hauling of which plaintiff would have made a profit of $ 23,296, if the contract had not been breached by the defendant. The suit is for this sum.
The interpretation of the contract is the question presented for our consideration.
The district judge maintained the exception and dismissed the suit for the following reasons:
"In the opinion of the court, the contract which is written into the pleadings of the plaintiff is too vague and indefinite in terms and conditions to form the basis of this action, inasmuch as many of the essentials to make this contract effective and executory would necessarily have to be supplied, and the court would be without authority to supply the contractual essentials."
A contract is incomplete unless there be a meeting of the minds of the parties upon the common ground of a mutual understanding of facts and of subject-matter. Not only must the parties understand alike, but their contract must afford a complete expression of this meeting of minds, and leave no material element unexpressed. Offer and assent must coincide and the result must be a complete obligation. Deshon v. Fosdick, 1 Woods, 286, 7 F. Cas. 527, Fed. Cas. No. 3,819; Knight v. Cooley, 34 Iowa 218; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berry v. Berry
...Miller v. Crusel, 135 La. 649, 65 So. 873 (1914). For statements of certainty required in all contracts, see Jones v. Janes, 156 La. 715, 101 So. 116 (1924); TAC Amusement Company v. Henry, 238 So.2d 398 (1970); Wright v. Mark C. Smith & Sons, La., 283 So.2d 85 Indicative of the uncertainty......
-
Fischbach and Moore, Inc. v. Cajun Elec. Power Co-op., Inc.
...show strong probability that it would have been accepted: Acceptance actual, final and irrevocable must be proved"); Jones v. Janes, 156 La. 715, 101 So. 116, 117 (1924) ("A contract is incomplete unless there be a meeting of the minds of the parties upon the common ground of a mutual under......
-
Williams v. Aymond
...meeting of the minds of the parties upon the common ground of a mutual understanding of facts and of subject-matter." Jones v. Janes, 156 La. 715, 101 So. 116, 117 (1924). At the hearing for the motion to withdraw the old stipulations, the parties agreed in open court to enter into a new st......
-
Wright v. Mark C. Smith and Sons Partnership
...none could determine the work imported and required by the contract. This principle is recognized in the cases of Jones v. Janes, 156 La. 715, 101 So. 116 (1924) and Greater Houston Suburban Corp. v. Dupuy & Mullen, 176 S.W. 668 (Tex.Civ.App.--1915) and in Williston on Contracts (3rd ed.) V......