The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-01-30
NOT A CONTRACT OF SALE.
An Application of the statute OF Frauds
-superior Court Reversed.


! The Judgment OF non-suit OF the superior
court In the case OF the Puget Sound Ma
| ehinsry Depot VS.. Rlgby q Evans. has
been ordered reversed by the suprems
ssgrt which has held that the question as
1 % whether a contract for the manufacture
ssd delivery OF n mining and pumping
tAnt was contract of sale should have
been submitted. under proper instructions.
% the jury. The action was brought to
recover $1,000 damages alleged to have
ben oecasioned by the refusal Of Rigby IS
Evans to accept and pay for the plant.
The only ground upon which thesre-
s,ondents claimed the action OF the lower
eourt could be sustained was that the con-
tract was for the sale OF personal property
salued at more than $50. and that there
vas no memorandum In writing signed by
ihs parties 10 be charged. The machinery
Depot claimed that the contract was not
sar the sale of the several articles 10 be
furnished. but for the manufacture of a
plant not within the statute of frauds.
and required no memorandum in writing
% give 1t force.
"As to wha. contracts are within and
what without the statute OF frauds" says
the court. has been a question often be-
fore the courts. and from the cases no uni
& fern rule can De formulated. II may.
however. be fairly deduced from the au-
fhoriiies that a contract for the manu-
fscture and delivery OF an article viii not
be within the statute of frauds as to sales
Of such property II the completed article
viii not be one which under the circum-
stances of the case would be marketable
commodity. IL the article when COM
pleted IL one OF special value TO the one for
whom II was manufactured and would be
OF comparatively little value IA an article
OF merchandise 10 be held for sale. the
contract will be construed 20 be one for
Manufacture and not OF sale
The court. after discussing more minute
Is the details OF the contract. passes 10 a
contention by Rigby a Evans that the
bulk OF the plant was made up Of articles
purchased as merchandise by the plaintir
from other parties. thereby changing the
nature OF the contract. In our opinion"
gays the decision. there IL little ground
for the distinction thus sought to be
drawn. 1t can make little difference
whether the plaintiff itself manufactured
the several parts of the plant and connect
ed them together 20 make up the
complete article ordered. or purchased the
principal parts. which as purchased were
rot adapted 10 the use for which they were
designed by the defendants, and by the ap-
rlicatlon OF skill and labor manufactured
the necessary parts to connect them SO
that as n whois the plant would comply
with the plans and specifications for Its
hahuias9uTe. III seems 10 us taat tbere
was testimony which would have author
he'd the jury. under proper instructions.
70 ind that the contract was for the manu-
facture and delivery OF plant which was
70 be the product OF the skill and labor OF
The plaintiff. ana II this was SO. and IL thu
Jury found in accordance with such tssti-
rony. damages for the violation Of the
contract could be recovered. though It was
rot evidenced by a memorandum In writ
fag"
The opinion was written by chief Jus
tee Hoyt. and concurrea in by thu four
associate Justices. The non-snit was
granted by Judge Osborn February -. 1895.