The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-02-21
HAY CASE DECIDED.
c-,reme Court Decides in the
Plaintiffs Favor
: THE moeFoRo-FRyE CASE.
:. important Lumber Boom Decision
by Jusge Hanford
$1,000 Note.

..~-evsa cart has decided that the
- ressr4 did not Dad IN sufficiently
-. ssrouas for plaintiff ~ the case os
Msyfor5 -. g. n. Frye. Fl al, an
s..s., thought 10 recover a balance alleged
= - due for the purchase price Of certain
- 81 hay sold. twenty-foBF IN all. and
..sssrs1 by Morfov5 TO Frye 4 Bruhn,
- car a balance alleged 10 be due for
$500 the hay 10 stock Belonging TO the
<-~Sanss There was no dispute as to
Z. fzrf of ire sale and delivery Of cer-
- -u.nbey OF stacks CT the hay nor the
-. - - having been fed TO the stock by
ss.-s,rd ard the amount OF money paid
= ia defendants 10 the plaintiff was
sx~xsa "a. The difference between the
-srsiss agsse fron their respective claims
= - the number OF tons Of hay contained
: shs stacks sold. Upon this question II
- s..pulsted that al the time tbs hay
- s.srrhaaeH the entire twenty-foelr
.s.ess were measured by both parties IL
- further stipulated that 81 the time
= ~ sale ard delivery II was agreed be-
sxsfn the parties nat one certain stack
sAsyasd he haled ard weighed as basis for
.sesf tainIug the whole number OF tors
= hay IN the twensy-four stacks. II was
snrshsr admitted thar the stack desig-
essed a. the ore 20 be baIed was haled
- weighed and found 70 contain 2-sx
sasx The plaintiff claimed that az a part
- he agreement ~ which these measure
nsass were taker, and the ore stack 6aled
s~ss weighed. IL was understood that thu
suhscaI contents Of each stack should be-
asssrrrlned by multiplying the length by
q width aad that product by one-third
u % distance over from base % base, and
l1troincsd testimony tending TO show that
fsef The defendants claimed that there
Vas no agreement as 70 the method TO be
aver 70 determine from the measurements
ssh4 eshicaI contents of each stack. and In
sessuced testimony tending 70 prove such
.4zlss bat some time after the hay was
ssssversd the plaintiff presented a claim
4 the defendants In which the amount OF
6ay Il the several stacks. as compared
xssh that in the stack weighed. was figured
A accordance with the rule which II was
saagssri bv him had been agreed upon be-
fxsea me parties. Upon receiving the
eslns and statement the defendants wrote
snree letters 20 the effec; that IN his tthe
pzsnslTsl figuring he had made a mistake
# the number OF cubic feet In the stack
lsied. making II l3224 feet instead OF 1888
FRET The letters also stated that in aTTlv-
~ ~ these agurss the same method was
Employed as that used by the plaintiff.
The supreme court says that IT Is con-
tsnsed By the plaintiff that these letters
sarnish absolute proof OF the correctness
S his eontention as TO the manner in
which the cubical contents OF the several
stacks Of hay were 10 be determined. and
Ehas their force was such as 10 estopp the
6sfendants In the absence Of any allegation
Of mistake or fraud. from claiming the
fsht 70 estimate such contents By any
ether rule
saThere Is force In this contention" the
court says. "and ~ II were necessary 10 the
serisson of the case we should probably
sustain 4. But IL Is not necessary to de-
sermine as TO the exact legal effect of
these letters II Is enough for US 10 say
hat they furnished such confirmation of
he testimony OF the plaintiff and were 80
eansradictory OF that offered on the part
ct the defendants. that the findings of fact
hy The trial court, in accordance with the
claim OF defendants. were so clearly
against the evidence that Notwithstanding
The force which must here be given TO the
fndirgs OF fact OF the trial court. they
eannot be allowed TO stand. There was
no fact shown by the testimony of the de-
PENDANTS which offered any adequate ex-
ense for having written these letters II tho
facts IN reference 10 the manner In which
fhe hay was 20 be estimated were as con-
tended for by them. while their having
iesn written Is consistent with all OF tho
facts IN The case upon the theory as TO
Measurement testified to by the plaintiff.
Nei only was the testimony Of the defend
arts contradicted hy these letters, but II
was further contradicted BY the fact that
HEY paid the plaintiff fully for the hay
Ton an estimate made by them upon thu
basis contended for by the plaintiff. and
from all thar appears would have paid him
al that he claims II they had not made
mistake in figuring the cubicai contents
Of TIE stack agreed upon aa a basis.
1T followR that as a matter OF law. even
the testimony Of defendants DC taken as
tas. their contention as TO the amount ot
bay contained ia the stacks cannot be stls-
tsined. n IS therefore unnecessary for us
70 determine the question Of fact raised by
The contradictory proofs on the part Of
DC Plaintiff and defendants. But In view
Of The fact that in our opinion the trial
eoert failed 10 give the force which IL
sboui to the admissions In writing on the
par OF jhe defendants. we have thought
Necessary 20 say that upon all the proofs
Ne aniings OF fact could not be sustained.
Ths judgment will he reversed and the
cause rsnaniei with Instructions 10 en-
Ger a Judgment for rnc amcGnts claimed hy
TIE plaintiff
TIE opinion Is by chief Justice Hoyt.
an eoacured ia By Justices punhar Scott
All Andcrs. IN dissenting. Justice Gordon
says. Il am not convinced that she hnd-
insx we're without competent evtie1cS 20
support them hence | respectfully y s.