Lewis v. Elliott Bay Logging Co.
| Decision Date | 04 August 1920 |
| Docket Number | 15762. |
| Parties | LEWIS v. ELLIOTT BAY LOGGING CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County.
Action by B. A. Lewis against the Elliott Bay Logging Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss action.
Byers & Byers, of Seattle, for appellant.
George Harroun, of Seattle, for respondent.
The purpose of this action was to recover damages for failure to deliver logs which it is claimed the defendant had sold to the plaintiff. The cause was tried to the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $241.66. The defendant timely made motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, both of which were overruled, and judgment was entered upon the verdict. The defendant appeals. The essential facts may be stated as follows:
The appellant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Washington, engaged in the logging business at Dabob, Wash. The respondent is engaged in the business of buying and selling logs. On the 25th day of April, 1917, the respondent visited Dabob, and looked over a boom of logs owned by the appellant, consisting of about 300,000 feet, and had a conversation with the president of the appellant company with reference to purchasing these logs, together with sufficient logs to be brought from the woods to constitute a raft. The logs at the time had not been rafted. Subsequently the 300,000 feet in the boom were rafted with other logs brought from the woods, and in the raft as made up there was approximately 470,000 feet. On the day following the conversation mentioned, one of the trustees of the appellant wrote respondent a letter, which contained the following:
'Having been away from camp the day you was here and Mr Leber sold fir to you for $7-10-13, * * * so therefore under the condition we let you have fir at $7-10-13 delivered in Everett or Seattle. * * *'
After receipt of this letter, and on April 28, the respondent wrote appellant a letter, containing the following:
'Your letter of the 26th inst. is received, in which you agree to let me have the raft of fir logs to be delivered in Seattle, by you at $7.00, $10.00, and $13.00 * * * and I will take the fir logs as per your offer at the above prices. * * *'
It should be noted that in appellant's letter the subject-matter of the sale is referred to simply as 'fir.' There is no mention of the quantity. In the respondent's letter for the first time the subject-matter is referred to as 'a raft of fir logs.' As above stated, the logs were not delivered, and, since the price of logs had advanced, this action was brought for the purpose of recovering damages.
The first question to be determined is whether the letters referred to constitute a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds. One of the essentials of a memorandum under the statute is that it shall designate the subject-matter of the contract.
Under this rule it is necessary that the note or memorandum show in 'what quantities' the goods are sold. In 25 R. C. L. 648, the rule is stated substantially the the same as in Mechem, and is as follows:
'In case of contracts for the sale of goods the memorandum must designate with reasonable certainty the subject-matter of the sale, and where the sale is of a quantity of a commodity the quantity must be stated with reasonable certainty as well as its kind.'
This rule requires that the quantity be designated in the memorandum. The letter written by the appellant, which referred to the subject-matter of the sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leaf v. Codd
... ... 244, 32 P. 9; ... Ryan v. United States, 136 U.S. 68, 10 S.Ct. 913, 34 ... L.Ed. 447; Lewis v. Elliott Bay Logging Co., 112 ... Wash. 83, 191 P. 803; Crystal Palace v. Butterfield, ... ...
-
Smith v. Twohy, 38567
...v. Decker, 47 Wash. 586, 92 P. 445 (1907); Mead v. White, supra; Cushing v. Monarch Timber Co., supra; Lewis v. Elliott Bay Logging Co., 112 Wash. 83, 191 P. 803 (1920); Martinson v. Cruikshank, 3 Wash.2d 565, 101 P.2d 604 (1940); Fosburgh v. Sando, 24 Wash.2d 586, 166 P.2d 850 The document......
-
Grant v. Auvil, 31753
...1 Restatement, Contracts, 283, § 208; see Jones-Scott Co. v. Ellensburg Milling Co., 108 Wash. 73, 183 P. 113; Lewis v. Elliott Bay Logging Co., 112 Wash. 83, 191 P. 803; Baillargeon, Winslow & Co. v. Westenfeld, 161 Wash. 275, 295 P. Since the purpose of the statute is to require a formali......
- Empson Packing Co. v. Lamb-Davis Lumber Co.