Hargrove v. Crawford
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Van Burén District Court. — Hon. Francis M. Hunter, Judge. This is an action for liquidated damages for breach of an alleged contract. The only defense which we need to consider is that the instrument set out by the plaintiff was only an order signed by the defendant, and that it was countermanded by the defendant before, acceptance by the plaintiff. At the close of the evidence there was a directed verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtEvans, J.
The plaintiff is engaged in the selling of silos. On May 10, 1910, canvassing agents for the plaintiff obtained from the defendant a certain written order for a silo, to be furnished and set up not later than June 15th following, at a lump price of $265. The written order contained the following express provisions: ‘ ‘ This order cannot be countermanded either before or after acceptance. . . This order is not binding upon H. C. Hargrove unless accepted by him at his office in Des Moines, Iowa, and after acceptance I agree to hold him blameless for failure to deliver from causes beyond his…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- National Refining Co. v. MillerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Peck v. FreeseMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Challenge Wind & Feed Mill Co. v. KerrMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Durkee v. SchultzSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Cary v. AppoAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1903
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
- Port Huron MacHinery Co. v. WohlersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928