Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-11-27
VERDICT STANDS
In Androscoeein County Case lnvolv.
ing Breach of Contract.

The law court, Frid1y handed down
Il per curtain rescript in the Andros-
| eoggin county case of Jonas Edwards
vs. George r. Lewis, overruling the
| motion of plaintiff to set aside YER
against the evidence. The rescript is
| as follows.
| This is an action to recover dam
ages for an alleged breach of con-
| tract to purchase The stock of an un-
dertaker's establishment in Auburn.
| The plaintiff claims that the defendant
agreed to purchase the stock for the
| sum of $4,000 and paid him the sum of
| 500 in earnest to bind the bargain -
| The balance to be paid within one
week. The plaintiff contends that the
defendant refused to perform this con-
tract and that he was thereby dam
aged 10 the extent of $500 by reason of
The loss of an opportunity to sell the
entire stock to other parties.
The defendant denies that he made
It contract to purchase the stock and
contends that the $l00 paid by him to
the plaintiff was for the purpose of
obtaining an option TO purchase the
$4,000 and that he exercised his right
not to purchase the stock and for
feited the 500 paid. This was the is
sue between the parties ana the jury
rendered a verdict in favor Of the de
PENDANT. The case comes to the law
court on a motion to set aside this
verdict as against the evidence.
The plaintiff and his bookkeeper Mr.
Pierson. appeared as witnesses and
gave testimony in support of the con-
tention that the defendant agreed to-
purchase the stock for $500. and on
the day that the contract was made,
paid the sum of S25 in the forenoon for
which a receipt was given him signed
by Jonas Edwards & Son. This re-
ceipt was written by Mr.. Pierson and
read in the hearing of the defendant.
1t acknowledges the receipt of the
sum Of $25 "on. account of purchase of
undertaking supplies and stock of late
c. W. Harris, contingent with further
payment of $75 on account this p NJ
Complete settlement to be made within
one week. In the afternoon the fur
Their sum of SIS was paid and another
receipt given signed by Jonas Edwards
& Son simply acknowledging the re
ceipt of SIS. The defendant testifies
that he told the plaintiff at the time
that he would give him $25 to hold the
matter for few days until his father
in-law returned and ne could have
chance to talk with him and some of
his friends in regard to it. The
plaintiff said no" he would not ac-
cept $25, but if l would give him 500
he would hold it for me because he
could not tell what would come up and
it might be worth 500 to film. / had
only $25 with me in the forenoon. /
understood by the receipt that by pay
ing this $25 at that time and SIS in the
afternoon that they were going to hold
the matter open for me for few days
until | had a chance to see my father
in-law and friends to see whether
should be able to purchase it or not"
But the defendant says that upon fur
Their investigation he discovered that
he could not obtain lease of the
building in which the stock was To-
Gated and for that reason and some
others, he decided to forfeit the 500
as he understood he had a right to do.
1t is not claimed tina the word "option"
was used at any time during any of
the interviews in relation to the pur-
chase of the stock and the testimony
of the plaintiff and his bookkeeper
tends to support the contention that
the 500 was paid to bind the bargain
and not simply to purchase an option.
1t is not in controversy that the
plaintiff did refuse to accept the SIS
and did offer to accept 500. This fact
has tendency to support the de-
PENDANTS contention that it was un
derstood by 10Th parties to be for the