NOBTON ». AMEEICAN EING 00. 685 �aut could not consent to give plaintif 10 per cent, oom- mission on all defendant's sales, because defendant al- Teady had a trade in that line of goods, but that defendant ■wouîd give plaintifif 7|- per cent, commission on all the goods he should sell and all the trade he should make for the de- fendant. Whether plaintiff replied by letter accepting the defendant's proposition is a fact in dispute, plaintiff claiming that he did reply, and the defendant that there was no reply. However the fact may bave been, the plaintiff immediately proceeded to obtain orders for defendant, and defendant fiUed them, shipping the goods to the purchasers, until in January, 1874, the parties agreed upon a reduction of plaintiff's com- mission to 5 per cent., to take effect from March 1, 1874. �The business relations of the parties continued until May, 1874, -when the defendant discontinued the arrangements with the plaintiff, upon the ground that plaintiff was selling goods of the same kind as the defendant's for oompetitors of the defendant. The evidence authorized the jury to find that there vras due, above payments from defendant to plaintiff, a some- •what larger sum than that found by the verdict. �The court ruled that the evidence established a contraet by which the plaintiff had the right to sell the defendant's goods for tvro years ; that there was no condition implied that he should sell exclusively the defendant's goods; that the ageement of the parties was valid withiu the statute of frauds, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover commissions on ail sales made, and the trade he procured for the defend- ant during the two years, at the rate of 7^ per cent, up to March 1, 1874, and 5 per cent, thereafter. �What the contraet between the parties was is to be deter- mined by the letters which passed between them. The plain- tiff's letter was a proposition to sell defendant's goods at a commission of 10 per cent, upon defendant's total sales, pro- vided the arrangement could be made for two years. The defendant's reply was a counter proposition based upon the plaintiff's, and was an implied assent to the terms proposed by plaintiff, except so far as plaintiff's proposition was mod- ified. This modification related only to the amount of the ��� �
