Michels v. Olmstead

• Decision Date: 01 January 1882
• Citation: 14 F. 219
• Parties: MICHELS v. OLMSTEAD.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

14 F. 219

MICHELS v. OLMSTEAD.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Missouri.

October Term, 1882

Tichenor & Warner, for plaintiff.

Peak &amp Yeager, for defendant.

KREKEL D.J., (charging jury.)

The plaintiff, Jacob Michels, sues George P. Olmstead on an agreement in writing which stipulates for machinery to be furnished by plaintiff to the defendant at specified prices. The law favors written agreements between parties to a contract, because they are supposed to decrease the liabilities for misunderstanding. It is presumed that when a written agreement is entered into that it contains the whole of the conditions and undertakings of the parties to the contract. The supreme court of the United States has had this matter under consideration lately, and I quote from its decision so much as will show the views taken of written contracts. Chief Justice WAITE, in Bast v. Bank, 101 U.S. 96, says:

'When parties, without any fraud or mistake, have deliberately put their engagements in writing, the law declares the writing to be not only the best, but the only evidence of the agreement and we are not disposed to relax the rule. It has been found to be a wholesome one, and now that the parties are allowed to testify in their own behalf, the necessity of adhering strictly to it is all the more imperative.' The contract read in evidence must be taken to set out the whole of the agreements of the parties, and no change of it can be made by verbal testimony unless the instrument itself shows on its face that certain matters pertaining to it are left undetermined, and when this is the case testimony may be admitted to complete the contract, so to speak.

In the quotation made from the opinion of the supreme court of the United States there are two exceptions stated to the law regarding written agreements between parties, and these are fraud and mistakes. To bring the defenses made by the defendant within this rule, he has set up in his answer certain acts and doings of the plaintiff, claiming them to be frauds upon him. It is alleged by the defendant that he was entirely ignorant of the value of the machinery for which he contracted, and that he relied on the plaintiff for the reasonableness of the charges, and plaintiff was thus enabled to deceive and did grossly deceive him regarding the cost of the articles. A manufacturer under such circumstances, if satisfactorily proven, is bound to make reasonable charges but as nearly all articles contracted for vary in prices in different manufacturing establishments, no definite rule can be laid down as to prices, and unless they are found to be grossly exorbitant the agreement made regarding them must stand. In the attempt to arrive at a conclusion as to such charges, as by their grossness amount to a fraud, you will take into consideration the knowledge the defendant had of the value of such articles and the means at hand to inform himself regarding such. If he failed to exercise due caution was careless or neglectful of his interest, he cannot set up his own shortcomings in his defense. This, however, affects the amount of damages only, and if plaintiff is found entitled to any damages, such an amount will be allowed him as will give him reasonable profits, estimating the original cost at the usual prices. If the machinery was to be...