Rock Island Plow Co. v. Meredith
Decision Date | 02 February 1899 |
Citation | 78 N.W. 233,107 Iowa 498 |
Parties | ROCK ISLAND PLOW CO. v. MEREDITH. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Cass county; W. R. Green, Judge.
Action on account. Judgment on verdict directed for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Affirmed.De Lano & Meredith, for appellant.
Flickinger Bros., for appellee.
The only item of dispute is that of $1,250 for 25 Rock Island hay loaders. It appears that Meredith, Dickey & Co., which firm the defendant succeeded in business, and of which he was a member, was engaged in the agricultural implement business at Atlantic and Griswold, Iowa. On the 12th of January, 1894, the firm executed two written orders for hay loaders to be delivered “on car at Rock Island, Illinois, about June 1st, 1894, or as soon thereafter as possible,” to be settled for November 1, 1894; but, in event one-half or less of the hay loaders were on hand at the close of the season, note was to be accepted payable November 1, 1895, with 7 per cent. interest. This was taken by the plaintiff's agent, subject to its approval, and was by it indorsed “Accepted” the following day. Twenty-five of these hay loaders were included in the contract for the house at Griswold, and to be delivered there, and thirty were included in that for the Atlantic house, and to be delivered at that place. In writing to the defendant regarding another matter, January 18, 1894, the plaintiff said: On May 18, 1894, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff: And the plaintiff replied on the following day: May 28th, following, the firm wrote the plaintiff that, These letters were written from the Atlantic house. On May 24, 1894, the 25 loaders were shipped to the firm at Griswold, Iowa, and reached there about June 1st. The firm paid the freight, placed the loaders in their warehouse, advertised them for sale; its employé entered the item of credit on its books, and made no objection whatever until November 24th, following, about six months after their receipt. In the meantime one of the loaders was sold, and four have since been disposed of. The defendant, in remitting for three of those sold, retained the discounts provided for in the contract.
The appellant insists that the contract was not binding until the firm was advised of its approval; that, prior to such time, it might withdraw therefrom; and that it was entered into on an oral agreement that it might be countermanded in event the hay crop should prove a failure. But these matters are quite immaterial. Giving the letters the most...
To continue reading
Request your trial