James Wilson & Co. v. M. Bailey & Son
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
This is au action to recover the balance of an advance made on one hundred barrels of linseed oil, sold by plaintiffs as commission merchants, for and on account of the defendants.
Read the full summary
This is au action to recover the balance of an advance made on one hundred barrels of linseed oil, sold by plaintiffs as commission merchants, for and on account of the defendants. The plaintiffs haye offered as evidence of their contract, in respect to the advance, and the sale, an instrument, of which the following is a copy: “Received, Cincinnati, February 16th, 1854, of James Wilson & Co. Twenty six hundred and seventy-five, ^ dollars, as an advance on one hundred barrels Linseed oil, in their store; for which advance we agree to pay them interest at the rate of six per cent per annum; a…
1Opinion of the CourtGholson, J.
As to the first question, it can scarcely be claimed that the writing does not constitute a contract. The distinction is well settled between a mere receipt, acknowledging money paid, and a receipt containing an agreement, condition, or stipulation, between the parties. The latter is in the nature of a contract. Niles vs. Culver, 8 Barb. 205. Goodyear vs. Ogden, 4 Hill, 104.
Upon the principle of these cases, the writing must be deemed a contract. But in truth, the present may be considered a much stronger case. The .expression, “as an advance,’’ would seem to be sufficient to create an…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stackpole v. ArnoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Pentz v. StantonNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Niles v. CulverNew York Supreme Court · 1850
3Cited by1 opinion
- Givner v. United States Hoffman MacHinery Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1935