Delaware State journal and statesman., 1869-06-18

that some persons estimated il much nlgneI,
even as high as million OF baskets, MT.
FELTON, thought II would require in all one
hundred and twenty cars to do the pusi1ess'
Forty cars down the road taking in peacues,
forty cars on their way to New YORK, anu
forty cars returning from New York. Ac'
cording to the testimony OF MIR. Todu, on
his cross examination, Mr.. FELTON, ana mos
agree TO furnish this number OF cars, put
merely said 1t would require that NUMBER 70
do tho business; and that his road woale
furnish its proportion, IL the Camden anu
Amboy would furnish their proportion, anu
that these respective proportions shouiu pe
settled by private agreement between them
Doctor Ridgeley's version Of the conyeIsa.
tion is that Mr.. FELTON, said he would pue
on special train of sixty cars but lhls,
he said, Mr.. FELTON, promised 10 do, upon
the expressed condition that the Camden
and Amboy road should supply its proper
proportion of the cars necessary TO aecommo-
date the business assuming the whole mum,
ber necessary 10 be put on to be one hundred
and twenty cars; but that the proportion TO be !
supplied by each Company should be mat,er
ofprivate arrangement. Doctor Rldgely also
stated that some time In the month oil August
Mr.. FELTON, told him the Camden and Am
boy Company had put on twenty cars,
and that that number was all they required
10 furnish. Such, gentlemen, is the sub.
stance of the testimony OF the members oil
the Committee examined is this case, IN re-
gard to the alleged special contract.
Mr.. FELTON, in his testimony, states in sub.
stance, that the Committee called on him TO
make an arrangement for carrying the peach
crop over his road-that they estimated the
crop at half million of bnskets-that he
told them that as far as he was concerned, he
would furnish his proportion of the cars to
do the business, provided the Camden and
Amboy Company would furnish its proper
ton of cars, according to the distance TO be
run-that ii the Philadelphia, Wilmington
and Baltimore roads proportion should be
sixty cars, the Camden and Amboy's proper
ton would be more, as the distance on their
road was greater and their cars smaller than
those of the Philadelphia, Wilmington and
Baltimore Road. That the Philadelphia,
Wilmington, and Baltimore Company was
TO deliver the peaches to the Camden and
Amboy company at Washington street wharf
that the committee, after they had con-
ierred with the agents of the Camden and
Amboy Company, reported to him that the
Company would put on their proportion of
cars; but that In fact they never furnished
onc-half of The cars they had engaged to
supply. That Mr. Townsend and others
complained to him that the Camden and
Amboy Company had failed to furnish their
who he considered the head and front OF the
Committee, and who mado almost all of the
arrangements, complained OF the Washing
ton street wharf route as a failure, owing to
the difficulties and dangers attending 1t, and
suggested a change of the point oil deliv-
: cry from there 10 the "Arsenal Junction, u
and requested Mr.. FELTON, 10 negotiate
with the Camden and Amboy Company or
: the subject, which Mr.. FELTON, did, and the
change Of the point OF delivery was finally
1 accomplished. That he then arranged will
Mr.. Townsend for two trains-one 10 arrivi
o at the Arsenal Junction at 8 O'Clock, and thi
g other at half past II O'Clock +. NJ. Now
n gentlemen, if this new arrangement as Il
!, the point OF delivery, was made at the in
a stance and request OF Mr.. Townsend, as th
= organ OF the Committee, because the Wash
e ngton street wharf route had proved a fail
= ure, or for any other cause, then we say I
: you, that from that time forward, for all th
n purposes of this case, the Arsenal Junction
% became the point of delivery.
ll Now, il is upon the state of facts touchin
d the arrangement made with MIR. Presider
Is FELTON, Tor the transportation OF peaches, {
le disclosed by the evidence, that the plainti
relies, as establishing a special contract bt
l. tween him and the defendant in this actiol
l. according 10 the principles or rules Of la
applicable 10 the doctrine of mutual promise
ed or undertakings, and corresponding mutt
as aliiy of obligation. We have been calle
sI upon 10 instruct you upon this subject, an
Ell we now say 10 you that we do not think Il
Vn proof in this case establishes the existent
ly of special contract between the parties. {
n the contrary we think there has been an I
ly ter failure oil proof on this point, for the n
1. Sufficient reason that the evidence does n
Ii show any mutually of obllgation,-or
ly other words because the evidence does 1
he show that both parties were equally bOuI
Ike The plaintiff was not bound TO send peach
eel or other fruit, or any thing else, over
road From first 10 last, either during sc
he eral conversations which took place betwe
: a tho members of the Committee and Pre-
Die dent FELTON,, at any time prior 10 the act'
ast delivery of peaches, or at any time att
for wards, there was not anything said or do
to by the Committee or by any member OF
on or by the plaintiff, or by any person on
IN, behalf, that could be held to impose NJ
n him any legal obligation whatever. A
lch hence il follows as legal result that as
oil plaintiff was under no obligation TO deli
ge peaches 10 the Company for transportati
ion the defendant was not legally bound
the force of the alleged special arrangement.
lnd We do not mean to controvert the d
With trine of the law in regard TO mutual pro
s to ises MS found in the books. We conc
rket il to be well settled, that contracts foun(
b n on mutual promises and undertakings,
ira perfected and made binding by the N
ttee consent of the parties,-th promise or
en- deTlaking of one party to do certain thi
Dur- being the consideration for the promise
y 10 undertaking of the other party, TO do or
Mr.. form some other thing. But at the 81
rom time, it Is also equally well settled, by
lpon considered adiudications, that all contr
they founded on like mutual promises, must
ould come binding or obligatory upon both
Will lies az the same instant OF time, so that {
any; may maintain au action upon 1t, or 1t
able bind neither. If one only is bound 4
the can be no valid consideration for the pr
light ise of the other, for such promise being pu
rket. one-sded, aud naked, is nudum pdetuTa,
and can impose no legal obligation. Beio
ny or party can, therefore, successfully mait
the an action against another, upon the gre
the of mutual promises or undertakings, he
Is TO show that he himself is also equally b
rites. by the engagement; and hence, il has
&c OF come automatic in the law, that mutual
have obligation, constitutes the very essen
their all contracts founded upon mutual prom
nable Wherever, therefore, there is the wa
safe such mutually, and nothing has been
He, by the party to whom the promise was q
MI IN upon the faith oil that promise, the
iness promising or undertaking may, at any
nittee before it has been accepted and acted
with resclnd or retract such promise, or n
ladel. and withdraw such undertaking, and
road place himself in the same position as il
e sug- never been made.
Iaving A proposal or offer, whether verl
Cam printed. 10 do certain thing, or 10 pc
urpOse n certain service, however formal or 81
laI en- in its terms. is at most but propo
axe IN offer. and must remain such, without i
lmely, ing any legal obligation, until accepte
caches acted upon by the party 10 whom /
Ut and made. And the party making such pr
oil the or offer, has, at any time before It hat
upon accepted and acted on, perfect lega
on mat 10 repudiate or withdraw il.
rry Inc Now, it is in evidence before you,
d from early az the e7Ih of july, the defends