DAWES V. PEKBLBS* ���857 ���P^Werner Steinbrecher, ioi ■plaintiSa. - �Rankin D. Jones, for defendants. �SwiNG, D. J., {char ging jury.) The petition in this case alleges that the action is brought to recover from the defend- ants the sum of $777.24, theprice and value of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff s to the defendants at their request, as described in an account which is attached to the petition and made a part thereof . The goods described in the account consist of a soda apparatus and tumbler-washer and a quantity of syrups. The answer of the defendants denies that they are indebted to the plaintiff s as claimed in the petition. It also denies the purchase of the goods, and denies each and every allegation of the petition. In an amended answer defeiidants admit an indebtedness of $10 for a part of the syrups used by theiu, and tender that amount, together with the costs, in fuU satisfaction of ail indebtedness from them to the plaintiffs. �From the evidence in the case it appears that the plaintiffs "were manufacturers of soda apparatus in the city of Boston, and that the defendants were extensive grocers in Cincin- nati, Ohio; that the agent of the plaintiffs residing at Cin- cinnati entered into negotations with the defendants, about the tenth of February, 1880, for the sale of a soda appara- tus, tumbler-washer, syrups, etc. Several interviews took place between the agent and the defendants, and several let- ters passed between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs claim that a contract was finally agreed upon be- tween their agent and the defendants, by which they sold to defendants the soda apparatus, tumbler-washer, and syrups for the sum in the petition alleged, upon condition that it ehould yield an average of five dollars per day to defendants up to the first of June, and that it should work as well as any other apparatus. Plaintiffs further claim that the appa- ratus yielded to the defendants far more than five dollars per day, and that it was equal in its working to the apparatus of any other manufacturer, and that on the first day of June they demanded of the defendants the amount of the payment which was then to be made, which was refused. Defendants ��� �
