Minneapolis St. Railway Company v. Columbus Rolling-Mill Company

by Horace Gray

United States Supreme Court

119 U.S. 149

Minneapolis St. Railway Company  v.  Columbus Rolling-Mill Company

December 5, 1879. Letter from plaintiff to defendant: 'Please quote me prices for 500 to 3,000 tons 50-lb. steel rails, and for 2,000 to 5,000 tons 50-Ib. iron rails, March, 1880, delivery.'

December 8, 1879. Letter from defendant to plaintiff: 'Your favor of the fifth inst. at hand. We do not make steel rails. For iron rails, we will sell 2,000 to 5,000 tons of 50-Ib. rails for fifty-four ($54) dollars per gross ton, for spot cash, F. O. B. cars at our mill, March delivery, subject as follows: In case of strike among our workmen, destruction of or serious damage to our works by fire or the elements, or any causes of delay beyond our control, we shall not be held accountable in damages. If our offer is accepted, shall expect to be notified of same prior to December 20, 1879.'

December 16, 1879. Tele ram from plaintiff to defendant: 'Please enter our order for twelve hundred tons rails, March delivery, as per your favor of the eighth. Please reply.'

December 16, 1879. Letter from plaintiff to defendant: 'Yours of the 8th came duly to hand. I telegraphed you to-day to enter our order for twelve hundred (1,200) tons 50-Ib. iron rails for next March delivery, at fifty-four dollars, ($54,) F. O. B. cars at your mill. Please sent contract. Also please send me templet of your 50-lb. rail. Do you make splices? If so, give me prices for splices for this lot of iron.'

December 18, 1879. Telegram from defendant to plaintiff, received same day: 'We cannot book your order at present at that price.'

December 19, 1879. Telegram from plaintiff to defendant: 'Please enter an order for two thousand tons rails as per your letter of the sixth. Please forward written contract. Reply.' The word 'sixth' was admitted to be a mistake for 'eighth.'

December 22, 1879. Telegram from plaintiff to defendant: 'Did you enter my order for two thousand tons rails, as per my telegram of December 19th? Answer.'

After repeated similar inquiries by the plaintiff, the defendant, on January 19, 1880, denied the existence of any contract between the parties.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, under instructions which need not be particularly stated; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions, and sued out this writ of error.

Leander J. Critchfield and Eppa Hunton, for plaintiffs in error.

R. A. Harrison, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice GRAY, after making the foregoing statement of the case, delivered the opinion of the court:

Notes