Rommel v. Wingate
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for refusing to receive a cargo of coal, alleged to lave been purchased by the defendants, who were coal dealers in Boston, doing business under the name of Wingate & Field, from the plaintiff,- who was a coal dealer in New York.
Read the full summary
Contract for refusing to receive a cargo of coal, alleged to lave been purchased by the defendants, who were coal dealers in Boston, doing business under the name of Wingate & Field, from the plaintiff,- who was a coal dealer in New York. At the trial in the superior court, before Deviey, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that, on March 5,1868, which was Thursday, the defendants wrote to him,.“ We wapt you to ship us at once a cargo of Lackawanna coal, half stove and half broken, and send it at once, as we are nearly out Answer by return mail if you can send it; ” that he…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The evidence of the contract entered into by the parties to this suit is contained in the letter of the plaintiff of March 6, 1868, and the second telegraphic despatch sent by order of the defendants on March 9,1868. The letter of the defendants of March 5, containing an order which the plaintiff did not comply with, and the first telegraphic despatch, are immaterial. The plaintiff’s letter of March 6 was an offer to ship to the defendants the coal therein described, at the prices and upon the terms named, and was of no effect until accepted by the defendants. The minds of the parties did not…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Cleveland Rolling Mill v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Sunshine Cloak & Suit Co. v. Roquette Bros.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Bamberger Bros. v. BurrowsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Beit Bros. v. Irving Tanning Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
- Landesman v. GumersellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.