Minneapolis St Ry Co v. Columbusco
| Decision Date | 29 November 1886 |
| Docket Number | ROLLING-MILL |
| Citation | 30 L.Ed. 376,119 U.S. 149,7 S.Ct. 168 |
| Parties | MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. RY. CO. v. COLUMBUSCO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action by a railroad corporation established at Minneapolis, in the state of Minnesota, against a manufacturing corporation established at Columbus, in the state of Ohio. The petition alleged that on December 19, 1879, the parties made a contract by which the plaintiff agreed to buy of the defendant, and the defendant sold to the plaintiff, 2,000 tons of iron rails, of the weight of 50 pounds per yard, at the price of $54 per ton gross, to be delivered free on board cars at the defendant's rolling-mill in the month of March, 1880, and to be paid for by the plaintiff in cash when so delivered. The answer denied the making of the contract. It was admitted at the trial that the following letters and telegrams were sent at their dates, and were received in due course, by the parties, through their agents:
December 5, 1879. Letter from plaintiff to defendant: 'Please quote me prices for 500 to 3,000 tons 50-lb. steel rails, and for 2,000 to 5,000 tons 50-Ib. iron rails, March, 1880, delivery.'
December 8, 1879. Letter from defendant to plaintiff:
December 16, 1879. Tele ram from plaintiff to defendant:
December 16, 1879. Letter from plaintiff to defendant:
December 18, 1879. Telegram from defendant to plaintiff, received same day: 'We cannot book your order at present at that price.'
December 19, 1879. Telegram from plaintiff to defendant: The word 'sixth' was admitted to be a mistake for 'eighth.'
December 22, 1879. Telegram from plaintiff to defendant:
After repeated similar inquiries by the plaintiff, the defendant, on January 19, 1880, denied the existence of any contract between the parties.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, under instructions which need not be particularly stated; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions, and sued out this writ of error.
Leander J. Critchfield and Eppa Hunton, for plaintiffs in error.
R. A. Harrison, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after making the foregoing statement of the case, delivered the opinion of the court:
The rules of law which govern this case are well settled. As no contract is complete without the mutual consent of the parties, an offer to sell imposes no obligation until it is accepted according to its terms. So long as the offer has been neither accepted nor rejected, the negotiation remains open, and imposes no obligation upon either party,—the one may decline to accept, or the other may withdraw his offer; and either rejection or withdrawal leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made. A proposal to accept, or an acceptance, upon terms varying from those offered, is a rejection of the offer, and puts an end to the negotiation, unless the party who made the original offer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co.
... ... accept or reject at his pleasure. Insurance Co. v ... Young's Administrator, 23 Wall. 85, 23 L.Ed. 152; ... Minneapolis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, ... 119 U.S. 149, 7 Sup.Ct. 168, 30 L.Ed. 376; McNicol v. New ... York Life Ins. Co. (C.C.A. 149 F ... ...
-
Lambert v. Kysar
...the Kysars' offer to sell, and a counteroffer to purchase the lesser quantity of trees. 5 See Minneapolis & St. L.R. v. Columbus Rolling-Mill Co., 119 U.S. 149, 7 S.Ct. 168, 30 L.Ed. 376 (1886) (order for 1200 tons of steel rails indicated rejection of offer to sell 2000-5000 tons of rails)......
-
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk
...recipient's rejection of an offer " leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made." Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U.S. 149, 151, 7 S.Ct. 168, 30 L.Ed. 376 (1886). Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle; to the contrary, that rule specifies that "......
-
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez
...recipient's rejection of an offer ‘leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made.’ Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U.S. 149, 151 [7 S.Ct. 168, 30 L.Ed. 376] (1886). Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle; to the contrary, that rule specifies that ‘......
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Unaccepted Offer of Judgment Does Not Moot Class Claims
...of an offer 'leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made.'" (quoting Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U. S. 149, 151 For some, the ruling came as no surprise, because despite the Court's failure to rule on the issue in Genesis, every Court of Appeals ......
-
Changing the Rule Changes the Game: a Rule 68 Offer for Complete Relief Should Never Moot an Individual's Claim
...Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 1533 (2013) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (quoting Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U.S. 149, 151 (1886)).206. Recent Case, supra note 158, at 1260.207. Id.208. See supra Part II.B-C.209. Recent Case, supra note 158, at 1267.210. Dia......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure
...Id. (quoting Chafin, 133 S. Ct. at 1023). 92. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. at 1533 (quoting Minneapolis & S.L. By. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U.S. 149, 151 (1886)).93. Stein, 772 F.3d at 703. The Eleventh Circuit explained that "Symczyk creates no tension with our analysis of whether a Rule 68 of......
-
Contracts without consent: exploring a new basis for contractual liability.
...acceptance may be terminated by rejection or counter-offer...."); see also Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. v. Columbia Rolling-Mill Co., 119 U.S. 149, 152 (1886) (determining that, after making a counteroffer that was not accepted, the plaintiff could not fall back on the defendant's origin......