Weiden v. Woodruff
| Decision Date | 15 January 1878 |
| Citation | 38 Mich. 130 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Hubert Weiden v. Isaac Woodruff |
Submitted October 23, 1877
Error to Kent.
Assumpsit. The facts are in the opinion.
Judgment reversed with costs, and a new trial ordered.
J. W & O. C. Ransom (on brief) for plaintiff in error.
Grove & Thompson and T. B. Church (on brief) for defendant in error.
Defendant in error sought to recover in an action of assumpsit upon the following instrument:
"Grand Rapids, Sept. 14, 1874.
Messrs. Isaac Woodruff & Co., General agents of the Pharos Lightning Rod Company, Grand Rapids, Mich.--You will please send me galvanized lightning rods for my house within sixty days, for which I will give you thirty-five cents per foot, due when work is completed.
H. Weiden.
Ten per cent. discount to be given on whole amount."
Plaintiff proved that under this order he had delivered 206 feet of lightning rod.
Defendant claiming that this written instrument did not constitute a complete binding contract between the parties, offered to prove the conversation between plaintiff's agent and defendant at the time this order was given; that defendant reserved the right to countermand the order at any time within the sixty days; that he did in fact within that time, and before any of the rod was delivered, actually countermand the order; and he farther offered to prove that at the time the order was given the number of feet of rod to be delivered was agreed upon. This evidence was all objected to and excluded, and plaintiff recovered judgment for the amount claimed.
I. This written order did not constitute such a written contract between the parties as would exclude parol evidence, or prevent the defendant from showing any further agreement entered into between the parties at the time the order was given, and not embraced therein. Richards v. Fuller, 37 Mich. 161; Phelps v. Whitaker, id., 72, and cases there cited.
II. This instrument was but a mere order. Woodruff was not bound by it in any way to deliver any rod. Until accepted by him it was not binding upon either party. Woodruff testified that he passed upon all orders taken by his agents; if he considered the parties good he delivered the orders, and that if he doubted the responsibility of the party who gave the order, he had the right to reject it. Under such circumstances, it is preposterous to say that there was a valid binding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Penny v. Kalamazoo Christian High School Ass'n
... ... Cf. Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University v. Burgess, 45 Mich.App. 183, 186--187, 206 N.W.2d 256, 259 (1973); Weiden v. Woodruff, 38 Mich. 130, 131--132 (1878). The remainder of this opinion is concerned with plaintiffs' allegations that defendant has violated both ... ...
-
Comstock v. North
... ... Co., 1 Pa. 109. See also 32 Ala. 1120 ... And to ... the same effect, see Houghwont v. Boisaubin, 18 N ... J. Eq., 315; Weiden v. Woodruff, 38 Mich. 130; ... Lincoln v. Gay, 164 Mass. 537; Craig v ... Harper, 57 Mass. 158; Isham v. Therasson, 53 N ... J. Eq., 10; ... ...
-
Bell v. Mulkey
... ... 213; Palmer v. Roath, 86 Mich. 602, 49 N. W. 590; John Hutchison Manufacturing Co. v. Pinch, 107 Mich. 12, 64 N. W. 729, 66 N. W. 340; Weiden v. Woodruff, 38 Mich. 130; Richards v. Fuller, 37 Mich. 161; Wood M. & R. Machine Co. v. Gaertner, 55 Mich. 453, 21 N. W. 885; 3 Jones on Ev. (2d ... ...
-
Cohen v. Jackoboice
... ... arose as to a warranty of quality. The same principle was ... asserted in Sirrine v. Briggs, 31 Mich. 443. In ... Weiden v. Woodruff, 38 Mich. 130, defendant had [101 ... Mich. 417] given a written order for lightning rods, which ... order was countermanded before ... ...