Utley v. Donaldson
Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
Citation | 94 U.S. 29,24 L.Ed. 54 |
Parties | UTLEY v. DONALDSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.
This is an action to recover from Donaldson & Fraley the sum of $15,375, paid to them by the plaintiffs, for fifteen bonds, purporting to be first mortgage bonds of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, and which subsequently proved to be counterfeit.
The court below found the following facts:——
'Get rate for $15,000, California Central Pacific R. R. bonds, delivered to-morrow.'
This despatch was, on said day, shown by Nichols to defendants, and defendants made a bid for said bonds, i.e., (100 1/2) one hundred and one-half. This offer was reported by telegraph to Newman & Havens by Nichols, and was by them accepted by telegraph.
'LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS, 24th May, 1871.
'W. NICHOLS, Esq., Cash., St. Louis, Mo.:
'DEAR SIR,—Your favor of the inst., with inclosure as stated, is received. We, this A.M., telegraphed you as follows, viz.: 'Get rate for $15,000, California Central Pacific R. R. bonds, delivered to-morrow.' Same is hereby confirmed. We herewith hand you bonds. Please close the transaction and telegraph us immediately. The party selling these bonds is waiting here to get the money for them. This same gentleman is an entire stranger to us, therefore, will you be kind enough to satisfy yourself that the bonds are all right. We desire them sold without any recourse on us. Your early attention will much oblige, respectfully, yours,
'NEWMAN & HAVENS.'
This letter accompanied fifteen papers, purporting to be so many bonds in said letter described.
Nichols handed this letter to defendants May 25, with the bonds, and proposed that the defendants should take said bonds without recourse. Defendants refused to take the bonds without recourse, but said they would do this; viz., would give to the Commercial Bank their (defendants') check for the agreed amount, $15,075, with the understanding that this check was not to be charged up by the Commercial Bank, where defendants kept their accounts, until defendants had sent the bonds to New York and learned that the bonds were () correct. If the bonds were found to be correct, the check was to be charged up against defendants, and Newman & Havens to be advised; if not, the bonds were to be returned to the Commercial Bank, and the check returned to defendants.
'ST. LOUIS, May 24, 1871.
'TO UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT:
'Make best bid fifteen Central Pacifics, quick.
'DONALDSON & FRALEY.'
After sending this despatch, and before receiving reply thereto, to wit, on the morning of May 25, defendants were shown by Nichols the letter of May 24, from Newman & Havens above recited, and the bonds.
Plaintiffs received this despatch, and on the twenty-fifth day of May replied by despatch, as follows:——
'NEW YORK, May 25, 1871.
'TO DONALDSON & FRALEY:
'We will buy Central Pacifics at a hundred and two and a half (102 1/2).
'UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT.'-
Defendants received this despatch on the same day about ten A.M.; and on the same day replied by telegraphic despatch, as follows:——
'ST. LOUIS, May 25, 1871.
'TO UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT, New York:
'We accept your offer, fifteen Centrals, one hundred two and a half.
'DONALDSON & FRALEY.'
'NEW YORK, May 25, 1871.
'Respectfully yours,
'UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT.'
The fifteen bonds were delivered to defendants by Nichols, cashier of Commercial Bank, May 25, and were by defendants forwarded by express on the same day to the Bank of North America, New York, with a draft on plaintiffs for $15,375, the bonds to be delivered by the bank to plaintiffs on payment of the draft. By mail—mailed by defendants. On the morning of the 25th of May defendants sent to plaintiffs a letter, as follows:——
'ST. LOUIS, May 25, 1871.
'Messrs. UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT:
'Respectfully yours,
'DONALDSON & FRALEY.'
This letter was received by plaintiffs at New York on Monday, the 29th of May, a short time before the bonds were presented by the messenger of the Bank of North America for delivery to plaintiffs, and prior to defendants' draft for $15,375, which was presented at the same time as the bonds, as hereinafter stated.
5. On the 29th of May, Monday, the messenger of the Bank of North America, with the bonds, fifteen in number, and the draft of defendants for $15,375, appeared at the office of plaintiffs in New York, to deliver said bonds and collect said draft.
Plaintiffs had, on the said twenty-fifth day of May, sold the bonds 'to arrive' to Rasmus & Lissignola, bankers and stock-dealers in New York, engaging to deliver them four days thereafter.
When the messenger of the Bank of North America arrived at the office of plaintiffs, with the bonds and draft, it lacked but five or ten minutes of the hour after which, by the rules of the New York stock board, deliveries of bonds and stocks sold could not be made for that day.
Utley, therefore, without examining the bonds, went hurriedly with the bank-messenger to the office of Rasmus & Lissignola, to be in time for delivery that day. Arriving there with the messenger of the bank, he asked Rasmus to examine the bonds, saying he had not had time to do so. Rasmus opened and briefly examined the bonds; said they seem to be correct; and, at the request of Utley, gave the messenger of the Bank of North America Rasmus & Lissignola's check for the amount agreed between them and plaintiffs, $15,403.12, which check was paid.
On the same day, and after the delivery of the bonds as above stated, plaintiffs wrote and mailed letter to defendants as follows:——
'NEW YORK, May 29, 1871.
'MESSRS. DONALDSON & FRALEY, St. Louis:
'Respectfully yours,
'UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT.'
7. On the same day plaintiffs sent telegraphic despatch to defendants, as follows:——-
'NEW YORK, May 29, 1871.
'TO DONALDSON & FRALEY:
'Centrals all right.
'UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT.'
8. On receipt of this despatch by Donaldson & Fraley, on the 29th or 30th of May, they informed Mr. Nichols, cashier of the Commercial Bank, that the bonds were all correct; whereupon Donaldson & Fraley's check for $15,075 was charged up, and Newman & Havens were advised by the Commercial Bank, and remittance made to Newman & Havens.
9. On the 12th of June, 1871, information was for the first time received in New York, or elsewhere, that there were counterfeits of these bonds in existence.
On that day plaintiffs wrote and mailed a letter to defendants, as follows:——
'JUNE 12, 1871.
'Messrs. DONALDSON & FRALEY, St. Louis, Mo.:
'DEAR SIRS,—Yours of 8th and 9th and 3d, Leavenworth, from Bank North America, 5th from U. & C. received.
'Respectfully yours,
'UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT.'
10. On the next day, June 13, 1871, plaintiffs sent telegraphic despatch to defendants, as follows:——
'NEW YORK, June 13, 1871.
'TO DONALDSON & FRALEY:
'UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT.'
11. On the same day, June 13, 1871, plaintiffs wrote to defendants, and mailed letter, as follows, viz.:——
'JUNE 13, 1871.
'MESSRS. DONALDSON & FRALEY, St. Louis, Mo.:
'Respectfully yours,
'UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT.'
12. On June 13, defendants sent a telegraphic despatch to plaintiffs, as follows:——
'ST. LOUIS, June 13, 1871.
'TO UTLEY, DOUGHERTY, & SCOTT:
'DONALDSON & FRALEY.'
The bonds in question were sold by Rasmus & Lissignola, immediately after they purchased them, to parties who sent them to Europe, whence they were returned declared to be counterfeit, and returned to Rasmus & Lissignola, who immediately demanded repayment from Utley, Dougherty, & Scott, plaintiffs; whereupon, on July 12, plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caine v. Hagenbarth
...Ed., p. 11; Breckenridge v. Crocker, 78 Cal. 529, 535-537; Hartford & New Haven v. Jackson [24 Conn.], 63 Am. Dec., p. 177; Utley v. Donelson, 94 U.S. 29, 47-48; Harvey v. Duffy, 99 Cal. 401; Menx Hogue, 91 Cal. 442, 448; Rovengo v. Defferari, 40 Cal. 459, 462-3; National Bank v. Hall, 101 ......
-
Maslow v. Vanguri
...also to abrogate or modify it after it has been made. Whiteside v. United States, 93 U.S. 247, 12 Ct.Cl. 10, 23 L.Ed. 882; Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U.S. 29, 24 L.Ed. 54. Even repeated requests, however annoying, to terminate a contract, do not of themselves constitute ground for rescission. T......
-
Sherman v. International Life Insurance Company of St. Louis
... ... Corporations (6 Ed.), p. 3180; Jackson Co. v. Gardner ... Inv. Co., 200 F. 113; Ervin v. Oregon Railroad, ... 27 F. 625; Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U.S. 29, 24 L.Ed ... 54; Hollister v. Stewart, 111 N.Y. 644; Canada ... Railroad v. Gebhardt, 109 U.S. 527, 27 Law Ed. 1020; ... ...
-
Steere v. Palmer
... ... First Natl. Bank, ... 231 F. 869; Metz Furniture Co. v. Thane Lumber Co., ... 298 F. 91; Wheaton v. Collins, 84 A. 271; Utley ... v. Donaldson, 94 U.S. 29, 24 L.Ed. 54. (8) Plaintiff had ... no adequate remedy at law. The services rendered were ... exceptional, ... ...
-
Finding common ground in the world of electronic contracts: the consistency of legal reasoning in clickwrap cases.
...TRANSACTIONS ACT [section] 2 cmt. 1; Watnick, supra note 9, at 190. (19.) Hatch v. Oil Co., 100 U.S. 124, 133 (1879); Utley v. Donaldson, 94 U.S. 29, 47 (1876); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS [section] 19(2) (20.) Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 29, 31 (2d Cir. 2002); For......