Strickland v. Parlin & Orendorf Co.
| Decision Date | 03 June 1903 |
| Citation | 44 S.E. 997,118 Ga. 213 |
| Parties | STRICKLAND v. PARLIN & ORENDORF CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where suit is brought on a contract of purchase of certain goods, and on promissory notes given, in accordance with this contract, as evidence of the indebtedness thereon, there is no error in refusing to require the plaintiff to elect as to whether he will sue on the contract or on the notes.
2. Where a dealer in goods in another state sends to a person in this state two unsigned papers--one an order for the purchase of a carload of drills, and the other an order for a single drill--and such person, after keeping these blank orders for two or three weeks, hurriedly signs the one for the car load intending to sign the other, and, without noticing the mistake, sends the order, and the dealer accepts it and ships the drills, and the vendee thereafter notifies the vendor of the mistake, but subsequently receives the drills, pays the freight thereon, stores them, exposes some of them for sale and sells one of them, the purchaser is liable in a suit brought by the vendor to recover the price of the goods.
3. A contract made by a drunken man is not void, though his intoxication be brought about by the other party, but is merely voidable at his election, and may be ratified by him expressly, or by conduct inconsistent with its rescission.
4. Where one enters into a binding contract to give certain promissory notes for named amounts, and subsequently gives them, fraud in procuring him to sign the notes, or drunkenness at the time of their execution, is no defense when the notes amount to no more than a compliance with his previous valid contract.
Error from Superior Court, Gordon County; A. W. Fite, Judge.
Action by the Parlin & Orendorf Company against R. L. Strickland. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Starr & Erwin, for plaintiff in error.
J. M. Neel and Cantrell & Ramsaur, for defendant in error.
The record discloses that Strickland, who lived near Calhoun Georgia, had received from the defendant in error two forms of order for goods. One of these was a form for ordering a car load of drills, with proper attachments; the other, for ordering one drill. Strickland kept these order blanks for two or three weeks, and then, according to his testimony, suddenly concluded that, as the season for selling drills was at hand, he would sign one of the orders. He intended to sign the order for the single drill, but, having both before him, he by mistake signed the order for the car load of drills, thinking he was signing the other. The reason for his immediate hurry was that some one was passing on the way to town, and he signed in haste, that he might give the order to the passer-by to take to one Neal, who was to mail it to the defendant in error. Some time later, Strickland discovered his mistake, either by receiving a communication from the defendant in error, or because of information received from Neal. After he ascertained that he had signed the wrong paper, and had ordered a car load of drills, when he intended to order but one, he claimed that he wrote a letter notifying the defendant in error of the mistake, and instructing it not to fill the order. This letter, if any such letter was ever written, was not introduced in evidence, although a notice to produce was given the plaintiff company; but a letter was introduced which Strickland stated was a postscript to the letter above mentioned. This "postscript" was as follows: On August 9, 1898, eight or nine days after the order for drills was sent, Strickland sent another letter, asking the company, if it accepted his contract, to "change it just a little and make the first payment due first of November instead of first of October," giving as his reason for this request that "the cotton crop is our money crop, and it never gets on the market till the first of November." The car load of drills arrived at the destination shortly thereafter. Strickland received them, paid the freight, and stored the drills in a warehouse. He took one of them out, and exhibited it in the courthouse square during the session of court. He carried one of them to Canton, and another to Ellijay. One of these he sold, while the other is still at Canton. He exercised acts of ownership and control over the drills during the fall of that year, and "talked them up" in his endeavors to sell them. The order sent to the defendant in error contained an agreement on the part of Strickland to give two notes for the purchase price of the drills; it being stipulated that these notes were to be received, not in payment, but merely as evidence, of the indebtedness. In December, 1898, an agent of the defendant in error met Strickland in Calhoun. There Strickland signed two notes covering his indebtedness under the contract. The notes not being paid at maturity, suit was brought on them in the superior court of Gordon county. Strickland filed two defenses: (1) That he had made a mistake in ordering the car load of drills, and had notified plaintiff of such mistake, and countermanded the order; and (2) that he had declined to sign the notes until the agent of the plaintiff gave him whisky and made him drunk, when he signed the notes without knowing what he was doing. The evidence relating to the plea of mistake and the rescission of the contract on that ground has already been recited. As to the plea of drunkenness, Strickland fully sustained...
To continue reading
Request your trial