E. P. Adams v. William Janes
| Decision Date | 28 March 1910 |
| Citation | 75 A. 799,83 Vt. 334 |
| Parties | E. P. ADAMS v. WILLIAM JANES |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
May Term, 1909.
SPECIAL ASSUMPSIT, Plea, the general issue, Trial by jury at the September Term, 1908, Franklin County, Powers, J presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case. The defendant also brought to the Supreme Court for Franklin County at its May Term, 1909, his petition for a new trial for that the presiding judge below refused to sign and allow such a bill of exceptions as defendant alleges he is entitled to. This petition was heard with the exceptions.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
The petition for a new trial is not sustained, and is dismissed with costs.
C. G. Austin & Sons for the defendant.
Present: ROWELL, C. J., MUNSON, WATSON, and HASELTON, JJ.
MUNSON
The declaration contains three counts. The first alleges that defendant sold the plaintiff 90 tons of hay at $ 10.50 a ton, to be pressed and delivered by the defendant in the cars at Swanton within a reasonable time, and to be paid for on delivery. The second count sets up a sale made in writing, says nothing about the hay being pressed, and alleges that the defendant was to deliver it "on board the cars when thereunto requested, to wit, at Swanton aforesaid," and that it was to be paid for on delivery. The third count is like the first, except that it alleges that part of the hay was to be delivered at Swanton, part at Swanton Junction in the town of Swanton, and part at Oakland in the town of Georgia.
The plaintiff offered in evidence a writing dated Oct. 8, 1906, apparently signed by the defendant, and reading as follows: "Sold my hay to E. P. Adams for $ 10.50 per ton, F.O.B., all to be bright sweet herds grass, about 90 tons." The defendant objected to its admission because it did not contain the essential elements of a contract, and because it did not contain the essential elements of the contract set out in the declaration. The writing was admitted, and the case states that it was the only writing made in connection with the sale.
The first point is whether the writing satisfies the Statute of Frauds. The statute requires that "some note or memorandum of the bargain" be made in writing. This writing must contain such a description of the contract as will obviate the necessity of resorting to parol evidence to supply any term of the contract essential to its validity. Ide v. Stanton , 15 Vt. 685, 40 Am. Dec. 698; Buck v. Pickwell, 27 Vt. 157, 167. The defendant's brief states this rule, and argues in general terms that the memorandum in question does not contain all the essential elements of a valid contract, but does not specify any particular in which it is claimed to fall short of the requirement. The only feature of the writing mentioned is that regarding the delivery, and all that is said of this is that the abbreviation "F.O.B." is a familiar and common term used in business and understood by everybody to mean "free on board." The only objection suggested by this will be covered by our consideration of an exception to the evidence.
Evidence of the location of the hay with reference to the railroad stations in the vicinity was properly received. Defendant argues in support of his exception that the terms of the agreement were not subject to explanation. It is true that the court received the evidence as explanatory of the meaning of F.O.B., but this was evidently an inaccurate statement of what ...
To continue reading
Request your trial