The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1891-03-26
JUDGE HATCH's DECISION.

District Court Howard County. Iowa.
Webster 4 Light o. l.. 4. Smith
will try TO express in few words the view
that take OF this case
The defendants receipt for 500 IL no. conclu-
siye but only prima iaete evidence that contract
This receipt Is no evidence Of the terms of the
contract These must be gathered from the EVIL
dcnce outside Of the receipt
In order 10 recover under the issue in this case
the plaintiffs must show quite clearly, not oDl,
that the parties made contract, but that they
made the contract alleged in plaintiffs petition.
Ifthere was complete contract prior to the Civ.
ing Of the receipt, the evidence does not make II
ut all clear that such contract il substantially the
same rs that alleged in plaintiffs petition. In
deed, think preronderance Of evidence shows
II the plaintiffs. therefore. recover in this &C
ton, IL must be on some contract completed dftc1
The 500 ,cas paid and the receipt therefor given.
Negotiations were carried on after the receipt
was given. Whether these negotiations were con
Quoted with the view Of modifying contract
made before the receipt WAS given or onl, rs q
continuation Of negotiations commenced before
cannot recover on the previous contract Tor the
reason already given. they can only recover by
showing satisfactorily that subsequent negotia.
tons resulted in the contract set out in plaintiffs
petition.
II pending these negotiations, an item was sug
gested by one party and assented to by the other
such item did not at once necessarily become 9
part Of the contract II 1t did, there were as ma
/
The minds of both parties were required to NEE
in the adoption OF all the details Of the contract
as trh0,c-d unit-before it can be said the con
tract is complete. And nj any time before this fl
nal meeting OF minds. either party was at liberty
to modify former propositions made by himself
or to withdraw his assent to propositions made b,
the other party.
1t is claimed by the plaintiffs that the mind.
did SO meet at their last evening interview. Blu
to my mind this not satisfactorily shown to be thu
fact. Neither party acted as ii he regarded tht
tsntS< YlnAE -
garded the negotiations as still pending. tn,
draft Of the contract the parties left II that eve
ming was changed by the defendant to make i
conform to his own mind, and the next morning
the plaintiffs themselves proposed other changes
In their own behalf.
Contracts, not negotiations. bind. The iailur,
OF these negotiations however, left the contrac
made prior to the receipt iii such contract wa
made) III force. II such contract was made ant
500 paid thereon. the plaintiffs had the clca
right upon the failure OF subsequent negotiation
to fall back on the contract But this they have
not done. They have preferred to rely upon the
diminished subsequent negotiations as modif
cation OF the original contract Qf any) and the!
seek specific performance OF the contract s.
The plaintiffs claim. know, that these subse
quent negotiations were only for the purpose o
ascerta lining and agreeing upon the terms of tn
contract already made. But think all the test
mony as to these subsequent negotiations indi
Gates that their object was, not to find out wha
the parties had agreed to, but what they ,coai
agree TO.
only take the time to indicate my conclusions
not the evidence which leads me to them. vii
add, however. in regard to the testimony. that
cannot think itclearly appears that the defendant
prior to the receipt. promised that he would neve
again engage in the newspaper business in How
| ard county.
Ill am right so far. all lawyers. think. vii
agree that court of equity cannot enforce tn
specific per Torrance Of the contract alleged il
the petition. For it Is well settled that court
equity will not undertake to compel obedience L
contract unless 1t is clearly and satisfactoril
shown that the contract was made. and unless q
| its terms are clearly and satisfactorily preven
the defendant will have judgment for his costs.
Dated March Ii, 1891.
/ L. O. HATCH Judge