J. Thompson & Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Perkins & Son

Supreme Court of Iowa

J. Thompson & Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Perkins & Son

66 N.W. 874, 97 Iowa 607

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedApril 10, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 66 N.W. 874 (J. Thompson & Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Perkins & Son) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. Thompson & Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Perkins & Son, 66 N.W. 874, 97 Iowa 607 (iowa 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Granger, J.

1 2 I. From appellant’s argument it

appears that the court below, in ruling on the demurrer, took the view that the only acts of approval of the order pleaded are the card of November 17,1892, and the shipment of the implements. Until the order was accepted, there was no contract. The acceptance must have been in such a way that both parties could know the contract was complete. No mere mental acceptance would be sufficient, and we do not understand appellant to claim, that it would. The order was conditioned, and, before acceptance, defendants had the right to countermand it. Benj. Sales (sixth Ed.), section 41. It seems to us that the petition pleads no other acceptance before the countermanding order than the card, or letter, under date of November 17,1892. No pleader, intending more, would have used the language as it is there used in connection with the card. If the construction is doubtful, after giving to the language a reasonable intendment, it should be resolved against the pleader. - The acceptance pleaded is in a single sentence, and the language employed, with the punctuation, indicates that the pleader intended to state the fact and manner of acceptance. The law requires that the acceptance must be communicated. 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 455, and cases there cited. We assume that the pleader undertook to plead a legal acceptance, and to this end made the averment as to the card being sent to show the acceptance. The proposition is not, to us, a doubtful one, that the averment means that the order was accepted by sending the communication. In this court appellant does not contend that the communication is sufficient as an acceptance, and we need not consider the question. The shipment was .made after defendants [610]*610had exercised their right to countermand the order, and, of course, could have no effect to bind the defendants. The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Granger, J.

1 2 I. From appellant’s argument it

appears that the court below, in ruling on the demurrer, took the view that the only acts of approval of the order pleaded are the card of November 17,1892, and the shipment of the implements. Until the order was accepted, there was no contract. The acceptance must have been in such a way that both parties could know the contract was complete. No mere mental acceptance would be sufficient, and we do not understand appellant to claim, that it would. The order was conditioned, and, before acceptance, defendants had the right to countermand it. Benj. Sales (sixth Ed.), section 41. It seems to us that the petition pleads no other acceptance before the countermanding order than the card, or letter, under date of November 17,1892. No pleader, intending more, would have used the language as it is there used in connection with the card. If the construction is doubtful, after giving to the language a reasonable intendment, it should be resolved against the pleader. - The acceptance pleaded is in a single sentence, and the language employed, with the punctuation, indicates that the pleader intended to state the fact and manner of acceptance. The law requires that the acceptance must be communicated. 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 455, and cases there cited. We assume that the pleader undertook to plead a legal acceptance, and to this end made the averment as to the card being sent to show the acceptance. The proposition is not, to us, a doubtful one, that the averment means that the order was accepted by sending the communication. In this court appellant does not contend that the communication is sufficient as an acceptance, and we need not consider the question. The shipment was .made after defendants [610]*610had exercised their right to countermand the order, and, of course, could have no effect to bind the defendants. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 N.W. 874, 97 Iowa 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-thompson-sons-manufacturing-co-v-perkins-son-iowa-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack