Park v. Whitney

19 N.E. 161, 148 Mass. 278, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 256
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 3, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 19 N.E. 161 (Park v. Whitney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Park v. Whitney, 19 N.E. 161, 148 Mass. 278, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 256 (Mass. 1889).

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Assuming in favor of the plaintiff that the language of the defendant’s letter which is relied on is to be considered as a direct offer' to purchase the shares, and that it is to be taken as an offer by itself alone, and independently of the other proposals in the letter, still the offer never became binding as a contract upon the defendant, for want of a due acceptance of it by the plaintiff.

In the first place, considering the nature of the offer, and [280]*280the circumstances as shown in the letter, the plaintiff must make known his acceptance by January 1, 1886. The words “ at that time ” mean the same as “ at that date.” But if that is not the true construction, at least the offer must be accepted within a reasonable time after that date. Plainly, the offer was not to continue for ever. The words at any time ” do not import perpetuity ; and if not, then the plaintiff was entitled only to a reasonable time ; and, there being no facts in dispute, this was to be determined by the court. There was no acceptance within a reasonable time. The defendant’s offer was not simply a business transaction, but, as was expressed in the letter, and as is shown by its whole tone, the offer was made, not because the defendant wanted the shares, but from a feeling of friendship to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not called upon to decide for more than nineteen months, at the shortest. He did not express any acceptance of the offer till more than six months after the nineteen months had expired. According to any fair construction of the defendant’s offer, the plaintiff’s option did not extend so long. See Loring v. Boston, 7 Met. 409; Ex parte Baily, L. R. 3 Ch. 592.

Judgment for the defendant affirmed.

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

Related

Powers, Inc. v. Wayside, Inc. of Falmouth
180 N.E.2d 677 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
Wagner v. Menke
20 Ohio Law. Abs. 501 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1935)
Tuten v. Bowden
175 S.E. 510 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1934)
L. E. Fosgate Co. v. Boston Market Terminal Co.
175 N.E. 86 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Fuchs v. Meyer
227 N.W. 265 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1929)
Horowitz v. S. Slater & Sons, Inc.
265 Mass. 143 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Chatham Manufacturing Co. v. Avery Chemical Co.
126 N.E. 772 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Gideon v. Hinds
238 F. 140 (Second Circuit, 1916)
Paulson v. Weeks
157 P. 590 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)
Starkweather v. Gleason
109 N.E. 635 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Brooks v. Trustee Co.
136 P. 1152 (Washington Supreme Court, 1913)
Ide v. Brody
156 Ill. App. 479 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1910)
Ellis's Admr. v. Durkee
65 A. 94 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1906)
Rotch v. French
56 N.E. 893 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Rackemann v. Riverbank Improvement Co.
44 N.E. 990 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 N.E. 161, 148 Mass. 278, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/park-v-whitney-mass-1889.