Case ID: walker_4/html/0174-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TIEDEMANN VS. CUTLER MANUFACTURING CO.
    Where a contract is made by letter, and there is no ambiguity, a party cannot testify what he meant by his letter.
    Error to Common Pleas No. i, of Philadelphia County. No. 392 January Term, 1884.
    Frederick Tiedemann & Co. agreed to pay the Cutler Manufacturing Co. seven cents a yard for goods manufactured by Burns & Ballou, and delivered to Tiedemann & Co. from warps furnished by the Cutler Co. to Burns & Ballou. The Cutler Co., finding that they were not making money, after a few weeks, stopped sending material to Burns & Ballou, and sent the following letter to Tiedemann & Co.:
    “Warren, R. I., November 1st, 1877.
    
      “Messrs. Tiedemann & Co.,
    
    “Gentlemen: — Yours of the 30th is at hand, inclosing check for four hundred dollars on account of Burns & Ballou, Which is placed to their credit. They, Messrs. Burns & Ballou, have been in a fume because we stopped shipping them warp this week, and 1 have no doubt it causes them much trouble and loss; but we cannot let their indebtedness increase. They owe us over five thousand dollars, and our warps are full one-third of the cost of their goods. If you will agree to pay us the ten cents or whatever Messrs. Burns & Ballou agree, we will keep them supplied, so there shall be no detention unless we break down. We don’t want the money every time you get a case of goods, but once in thirty days, but we do want notice that you have the goods and that we can look to you for the pay at the time when it shall become due. We have heard no word from you since the 6th of October, and we did not know as you had <or were getting any goods, so if you will notify us when and how, many goods you received, we shall be able to govern ourselves accordingly, and keep the mill running. We have learned to place little confidence in what they, Burns & Ballou, tell us, for, if promises would buy warps and yarns, they would have an abundance, so let us hear from you, so we may have something to rely on.
    
      } “Yours truly,
    “C. R. CUTLER, Treas.”
    Tiedemann & Co. replied as follows:
    “Philadelphia, November 3d, 1877.
    
      <cCutler Manufacturing Co., Warren,
    
    “Gentlemen : — Your favor of 1st instant to hand and contents noted. We will remit to you hereafter ten cents per yard, and hope to send you a nice check on Monday. Messrs. Burns & Ballou did not send us any goods for two weeks, and ¡we could not send any money. We have some three thousand dollars borrowed money due us, and we are as anxious as you are. If they can make some five hundred pieces of matlasse a1¡ s. good profit, we hope, with Vietor & Achelis, to get them out of the mud.
    “Yours truly,
    “F. TIEDEMANN & CO.”
    The Cutler Company then furnished a lot of material and demanded payment at the rate of ten cents per yard. Tiedemann contended that he meant that he would pay ten cents for' matlasse. He paid seven cents a yard, and the Cutler Co.brought suit to recover the three cents extra per yard, for what was furnished after November 3, 1877. Upon the trial defendant offered to prove by Frederick Tiedemann that as the letters did not fully set forth and explain the contract, it was-his intention to pay the ten cents per yard in case Burns & Ballou furnished matlasse. The Court held that the letters were-not ambiguous, and refused to admit the evidence, and there being no dispute as to the quantity of goods furnished directed a verdict for plaintiff for amount claimed.
    Tiedemann & Co. then took this writ of error.
    
      Henry D. Wireman, Esq., for plaintiff in error,
    argued that letters written in the hurry of business were not the “written instruments” which are so jealously protected by the policy of the law. Here we offered to prove part of the contract not in writing; we agreed with Burns & Ballou to pay ten cents a yard for matlasse only. He also cited the following authorities: Stokes vs. Burrell, 3 Grant 241; Warnick vs. Grosholz, 3 Gr. 235; Juniata B. & L. Ass. vs. Hitzel, 103 Pa. 507; Mildren vs. The Penna. Steel Co., 90 Penna. 317; Foster vs. Berg, 104 Pa. 324; Brownfield vs. Brownfield, 12 Pa. 136; Beatty vs. Lycoming Ins. Co., 52 Pa. 456; Lycoming Mut. Ins. Co. vs. Sailer, 67 Pa. 108; Hughes vs. Westmoreland Coal Co., 14. W. N. C. 463.
    
      Messrs. Garsed & Bayly and Samuel B. Huey, Esqs., contra;
    “The most important commercial contracts are made by letter, more frequently than in any other way;” Hilliard on Contracts, page 14, plac. 19, edition 1872. .No evidence was adduced to-show that the contract was partly oral. Tiedemann’s evidence-was inadmissible; Phillips vs. Meily, 15 W. N. C. 226.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Commons' Pleas on February 2nd, 1885, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

We concur with the Court that the letters given in evidence-were free from ambiguity, and on their face they established a clear and specific contract. It would have been error to permit : the defendant below to testify what “he meant and understood by his letters.” As the contract was in writing, it was the duty of the Court to construe the letters. They admit of no other construction than the one given.

Judgment affirmed.