Pence v. Langdon
Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
Citation | 25 L.Ed. 420,99 U.S. 578 |
Parties | PENCE v. LANGDON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. C. K. Davis for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. William Lochren, contra.
A brief statement of the facts disclosed in the record will be sufficient for the purposes of this opinion, and a few remarks will suffice to dispose of the case.
Langdon lived in Minnesota. Pence lived in California, and was engaged in mining operations. On the 10th of December, 1874, Langdon, by a letter of that date, advised Pence that he had seen Watson, and inquired about their mining interests. He concluded by saying: 'If any thing can be done that will be satisfactory to all parties, let me know.' Pence replied by letter of the 17th of that month. Speaking of the mine in which he and Watson were concerned, he said, amongst other things: 'There is an eighth, that is, 7,500 shares, that can be bought if taken at once, at the same I paid and the same Watson paid, after looking and prospecting for five weeks.' 'The price is . . . $8,368.75, gold.' . . . &c. Langdon bought and paid the price demanded. On the 28th of January, 1875, Pence addressed Langdon another letter from San Francisco, in which he said: 'There have been not less than 1/2 doz. after the 7,500 shares of stock I sold you, and all were astonished to find themselves too late; and still more astonished when I told them there was no more to be had at present, as we have the controlling interest, and propose to run the mine as we think best.' . . . 'The stock I have deposited in the Nat. Gold Bank and Trust Co. of this city.' . . . 'I would like to have you come out after the roads get good and weather pleasant in the spring.' This letter enclosed a bill commencing 'Hon. R. B. Langdon, Mina., to J. W. Pence, dr.' The stock was charged and the amount paid was credited. No person other than Pence was named as the seller. Linton and Shepherd were interested with Langdon in the purchase. On the 20th of June, 1875, all of them visited the mine with Pence. They claimed then to have learned for the first time that Pence had sold them his own stock, and to have learned also that the stock was worth much less than they had paid for it. They arrived on Saturday, and on the next day notified Pence that they rescinded the contract, and required what they had paid to be refunded. Shepherd and Linton transferred their interest to Langdon, and he thereupon brought this suit. The code of Minnesota authorized it to be in his name.
Upon the trial in the court below six exceptions were taken by Pence. Two of them were to the admission of testimony. Both of them are so clearly without merit, that we deem it unnecessary to say more about them. He also excepted to the refusal of the court to direct the jury to find a verdict in his favor.
Such direction can be properly given only when the state of the evidence is such as to leave no room for doubt that it is the duty of the jury to find accordingly. This case was certainly not within that category.
The objection that the notice of rescission was void because given on Sunday is without force. It was given at the mine, which is in Nevada. The result claimed could be produced only by a statutory provision to that effect. The statute of Nevada relating to the Sabbath in no wise affects the subject. See 'An Act for the better observance of the Lord's day,' of Nov. 1, 1861, 1 Compiled Laws of Nevada, p. 2, c. 3.
The stock certificate left at the Gold Bank of Langdon was never in his possession. The affirmance of this judgment will extinguish his claim to it, and Pence can reclaim it whenever he may choose to do so. Langdon was not bound to receive it and tender it back to Pence before bringing suit.
The remaining exceptions relate to instructions given to the jury, which are as follows:——
'1. In deciding this question of fact, you must take the letters and telegrams and all of them, and looking at them in the light of the previous relations of the parties, and of what each of the writers knew, placing yourselves in the writers' place and situation in order better to ascertain their meaning and purpose, and in the light...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Citizens Nat. Bank of Meridian v. Golden
... ... Co. v. Childress, 125 So. 708; 14 ... Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law (2 Ed.) page 132; Cannon ... Goulding & Thies v. Hausaman, 140 P. 407; Pence v ... Landon, 99 U.S. 578; King v. Livingston Mfg. Co., 60 So ... Argued ... orally by R. E. Wilbourn, for appellant, and by Lester E ... ...
-
Bullard v. Citizens' Nat, Bank
... ... defeat rescission, the burden is upon the defendant to make ... Josly ... v. Cadillac Automobile Co., 101 U.S. 77; Pence v. Langdon, 99 ... U.S. 578; Mudsill v. Watrous, 22 U.S. App. 12; Griffith's ... Chancery Practice, par. 47; 3 Black on Rescission and ... ...
-
Co. Lane v. Parsons, Rich & Co. (In re Millers)
... ... Schreiber v. Insurance Co., 43 Minn. 367, 45 N. W. 708;Pence v. Langdon, 99 U. S. 578, 25 L. Ed. 420. The intent may be inferred from facts and circumstances, as well as found in declarations of the parties, ... ...
-
Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane
... ... Schreiber v. German-American Ins. Co., 43 Minn. 367, 45 N. W. 708; Pence v. Langdon, 99 U. S. 578. The intent may be inferred from facts and circumstances, as well as found in declarations of the parties, and the knowledge ... ...