Wilkinson v. Taylor Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1890
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: S. D. WILKINSON v. TAYLOR MANUFACTURING Co

7 So. 356

67 Miss. 231

S. D. WILKINSON v. TAYLOR MANUFACTURING Co

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 3, 1890

FROM the circuit court of Amite county, HON. J. B. CHRISMAN Judge.

This was a suit for damages brought by the appellant, Wilkinson against the Taylor Manufacturing Company, of Chambersburg Pa., for the non-performance of an alleged contract for the purchase of certain machinery. The agent of defendant took from plaintiff, addressed to defendant, an order for the purchase of the machinery, which was full and specific as to the description of the property, terms of payment, and other particulars of the contract. This was signed by plaintiff and sent by mail to defendant, and the defendant responded by letter, addressed to plaintiff, as follows:--

"Your order through Mr. Weathersby was received on Sept. 11th, and we will ship to-day and push it through as fast as possible. We returned the notes for them to be properly made out, as the interest clause had been put in incorrectly.

"Very truly yours,

"TAYLOR MFG. Co."

On the trial plaintiff' introduced the order given by him together with the response of the defendant, and offered to show by parol that the order was taken and the letter written in reply; that these referred to the purchase of the machinery named; that the machinery was not sent according to the contract, and that plaintiff had been damaged. The court excluded the evidence, and a verdict was rendered in favor of defendant. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Cassedy & Ratcliff, for appellant.

1. The agent of defendant was authorized to act for the company, and it was not necessary that the contract should be signed by it.

2. But the company ratified the contract by a letter which was duly signed. The case of Frank v. Eltringham, cited by opposite counsel, has no application.

T. McKnight, for appellee.

The communication from Wilkinson is nothing more than an order for machinery in which he reserves the right to refuse to take it on arrival by paying the freight. It is signed only by Wilkinson, and not by appellee or its agent. Code 1880, § 1295; Frank v. Eltringham, 65 Miss. 281.

The court did not err in excluding testimony. The order shows that other papers were to be signed by the appellant before the contract was complete, even if appellee had signed. The letter written by appellee was nothing...