Beymer Bauman Lead Co. v. Haynes
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. After the evidence was out the action was withdrawn from the jury and reported to the law court. The full court were to render such decision as the legal rights of the parties require, from the admissible evidence, being invested with jury powers, &c. The case appears in the opinion.
Read the full summary
On report. After the evidence was out the action was withdrawn from the jury and reported to the law court. The full court were to render such decision as the legal rights of the parties require, from the admissible evidence, being invested with jury powers, &c. The case appears in the opinion. The defendants claim that the plaintiffs agreed, by the telegram and letter in reply, to furnish them what white lead they might order for the season’s trade, for 5i cents per lb., less 2-| per cent, in 60 days; and for less, if the defendants could buy of responsible parties for less. Defendants…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
There are differences between the parties as to the construction of certain correspondence between them con*29cerning the salo and delivery of amounts of white lead, and a resort was had to the testimony of experts in the trade to ascertain the meaning of certain short expressions and abbreviations in the correspondence which would not explain themselves.
The defendants expecting the arrival of the plaintiffs’ agent, with whom they were to make more definite terms, telegraphed the plaintiffs in these words, “Will you protect and guarantee us on lead until your agent gets here? we are offered…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Matthews Glass Co. v. BurkIndiana Supreme Court · 1904
- Paxton & Gallagher v. PellishWyoming Supreme Court · 1931
- Great Western Land Co. v. WaiteOregon Supreme Court · 1917