Lincoln v. Erie Preserving Co.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1882
• Citation: 132 Mass. 129
• Parties: Luther J. B. Lincoln v. Erie Preserving Company
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

132 Mass. 129

Luther J. B. Lincoln v. Erie Preserving Company

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 3, 1882

Argued September 6, 1881

Suffolk. Contract for the non-delivery of 3000 cases of corn. Answer the statute of frauds. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Bacon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The defendant is a corporation established in New York, engaged in packing fruits and vegetables. The plaintiff is a broker and dealer having his office in Boston. He had acted as broker for the defendant, and had also dealt with it in his own name.

On September 26, 1879, the plaintiff signed and sent from Boston to the defendant the following telegram: "Telegraph how much corn you will sell, with lowest cash price Buffalo." The defendant signed and sent from New York on the same day, the following telegram: "Three thousand cases, one dollar five cents, open one week."

The plaintiff also signed and sent to the defendant, after the receipt of the above message, on the same day, the following telegram: "Sold corn, will see you to-morrow." There was no other memorandum in writing.

The plaintiff went to New York on September 27, and had an interview with the defendant's treasurer and manager. The plaintiff offered to prove that at such interview he verbally accepted the offer contained in the telegrams; that the defendant promised to ship the goods to him; and that the last telegram referred to a resale by himself of the same corn to one Hooper.

The judge ruled that the plaintiff could not maintain an action upon the contract, because it was a contract for the sale of merchandise for the price of more than $ 50, and there was no acceptance of any part of the goods, or giving anything in earnest to bind the bargain, or part payment, and no sufficient note or memorandum in writing of the bargain made and signed by the defendant, or by any one thereunto authorized, because the name of the purchaser was not disclosed in the writings; and that no parol testimony could supplement the telegrams so as to bind the defendant to its offer; and found for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

A Hemenway, for the plaintiff.

W. B. French, for the defendant.

OPINION

Allen J.

The telegrams do not contain any offer by the defendant to sell to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a broker, and had acted as a broker for the...