The New York herald., 1845-01-29
Circuit Court.

JAN Barring BROTHERS 4 Co. Darts Brooks 4 Co.
occupied The cou Tor the last four days. concluded
II will he seen that il involves nice points Of
marks which he would make he had first TO direc their
attention the fact Of the amount claimed by Barring
Brothers Co." The fst enquiry should be as to whe.
her there was a previous bargain SO as 10 constitute
legal csptact Il appeared from the evidence, that in
April 1885, there employed in the railroad company
the contractors His Honor after briefly recapiulating
the testimony in relation to the general sale OF iron bars
called the attention # jury the fact Of the delivery
Of the spikes which the subject OF controversy
ives the FIRST that contained the conditional order rela
on to the spikes requiring from BarinRs Co specihca
ton as to the size and quality, with the view to perfect
deliver the spikes The evidence for the plaintiff did not
60 to the extent prove that order given for
the saikes which they contend they supplied thinking
it oversight the part of Davis. Brooks Co."
The question was to consider how far the defendant
by receiving the articles, alleged-adope cd the
act Of the plaintiff. II appeared in evidence that
person. whom they aege to have been agent Tor the
Railroad Comnany had for the Company with
the house Of the plaintiff; but it strange that not
withstandng this they allege--it remarkable
TACT that at different intervals in the Autumn of 1867
sundry bags OF nails were shipped from their house in
England, and still there mention Of the contract
until the controversy arose between the parties
act by acy receiving the spikes thst tacit acceptance
amounted to certain extent to ratification Of the act
illustrate tSs matter he would merely put the Of
ny ahousewhich house received the goods without
m0nstratng in the event of their having objection to
receive them-and such silence afforded that strong
sumption in law, which constituted valid sale and
tract but In the appeared the spikes
returned, and another question hereupon arose, as
to whether the articles returned in a mea.
surable time after delivery. The testimony this
point was however, conflicting Long eales settled
the question in relation to the delivering back within
reasonable time From the month of November 1895 to
the succeeding May 1887 appeared some of the cagoes
left and not inspected to which the defendants
ply that there Chief Engineer to inspect for
them and only the 9Th of May, 1887, that the
defendants wrote back to Barring Brothers Co., stating
that the spikes did not suit Now here period Of
seven months when the articles allowed to re-
main without the necessary inspection Barring Brothers
Co.. appeared replied the S0th May, stating they
not liable for the spikes when subsequently they
shipped for the house Of Raring Brothers Co. Il
remained for the jury to consider therefore, drst,
whether the spikes were delivered back within
reasonable time and also. whether not there
valid contract though the defendants not having orgi
nally given the usual orders whether the subsequent
receipt by the Company did not obvate the necessary
premnaries to constitute in law such contract but the
chief point to consider what amounted In law to
ti6caton of contract through agent and the pre-
sent could be considered SUCH Verdict this forenoon
Wiley Putnam Federal Tandenbureh-This AMI
action OF assumps to compensation for publish
ing work, entitled Mineral Springs of Virginia, fo
defendant The defendants Counsel Mr.. Sandford NOW
ed for non suit the ground that there specd
agreement the part of defendant providing that he wds
not bound to pay until the sale Of the books and hft
action brought portion Of the books
having remained on sale. Non-suit allowed