Perry v. Mount Hope Iron Co.

• Decision Date: 24 July 1886
• Parties: PERRY v. MOUNT HOPE IRON CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

5 A. 632

15 R.I. 380

PERRY

v. MOUNT HOPE IRON CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 24, 1886.

Appeal from order of court of common pleas overruling motion for new trial, and on exceptions.

The opinion states the facts.

Lemuel H. Foster, for plaintiff.

Augustus S. Miller and Arthur L. Brown, for defendant.

DURFEE, C. J. This is an action to recover damages of the defendant corporation for refusing to receive a cargo of "bolt and nut-scrap and boiler-plate" iron, so called, which the plaintiff claims the defendant agreed to buy at the rate of 87 1/2 cents per hundred, delivered at its works in Somerset, Massachusetts. Upon trial in the court of common pleas the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The case is before us on the defendant's petition for a new trial for alleged misrulings, and on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, and the weight thereof. The plaintiff lives and does business in Providence. The defendant is a Massachusetts corporation, having its business establishment in Somerset, Massachusetts. Job M. Leonard is treasurer, and has an office in Boston. He makes purchases for the defendant.

On the trial in the court below the plaintiff put in testimony to show that his agent visited Leonard, April 30, 1885, and informed him that the plaintiff had the "nut and bolt shop scrap," and solicited an offer for it; that Leonard offered 87 1/2 cents per hundred, delivered at the company's wharf, and the agent asked him to let the offer stand until the next day, which Leonard agreed to do; and that the next day the plaintiff telegraphed from Providence to Leonard, in Boston, accepting the offer. The defendant did not admit that the offer was made as stated; and made the point that, if it was so made, the contract was not completed by the acceptance until the acceptance reached him in Boston; and that consequently the alleged contract was a Massachusetts contract, and, not being in writing, was invalid under the Massachusetts statute of frauds, which was put in proof. The court below ruled the point against the defendant, holding that the contract was completed in Rhode Island by sending the telegram.

The defendant cites a few cases which support its position, (McCulloch v. Eagle Ins. Co., 1 Pick. 278; British & American Tel. Co. v. Colson, L. R. 6 Exch. 108; Langd. Cas. Cont. §§ 1-18; Langd. Sum. Cont. §§ 14-16;) but the weight of authority strongly supports the instruction given by the court, (1 Add. Cont. *18, note 1, and cases there cited; Maclay v. Harvey, 32 Amer. Rep. note, 40.) This note contains a full report of the recent English case, Household Fire & Carriage Accident Ins. Co. v. Grant, 4 Exch. Div. 216. The case was decided in the court of appeals July 1, 1879, by THESIGER and BAGGALLAY, L. JJ.; BRAMWELL, L. J., dissenting. Its doctrine is that the contract is binding on the proposer as soon as a letter accepting the proposal, properly directed to him, is posted by the recipient, whether it reaches the proposer or not, if posted without reasonable delay, and the post is the ordinary and natural mode of transmitting the acceptance. In that case the letter did not reach the proposer, and BRAMWELL, L. J., who dissented, conceded that, "where a posted letter arrives, the contract is complete on posting." In the case at bar the arrival of the telegram is not disputed. We are of opinion that the contract, if made, was completed in Rhode Island, notwithstanding it was to be performed in Massachusetts. Hunt v. Jones, 12 R. I. 265. If there be any question that the telegraph is a natural and ordinary mode of transmitting such an acceptance, that is a question of fact for the jury; but we are...