Case Name: MORRIS, Respondent, v. EDWARDS, Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1891-01
Citations: 10 Mont. 298
Docket Number: 
Parties: MORRIS, Respondent, v. EDWARDS, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 298–304

Head Matter:
MORRIS, Respondent, v. EDWARDS, Appellant.
Cohtbacts — Interpretation—Sales of personal property. — A contract for the sale of a stock of goods expressed as a consideration “seventy-five per cent of the present wholesale cost at the present time, with freight added, at present rates and classification.” The vendee withheld twenty-five per cent on the freight as well as the stock. Held, that only" the cost of the stock was subject to discount, and the freight should he paid in full.
Appeal from First Judicial District, Lewis and Clarke County.
The cause was tried before Hunt, J., upon an agreed statement of facts. The plaintiff had judgment below.
Statement of the case, prepared by the judge delivering the opinion.
This case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, from which the following appears: —
Plaintiff sold defendant a stock of goods. In their contract of sale is the following clause: “ And the said party of the second part agrees to and with the said first party, who hereby assents to the same, to pay said first party, his personal representatives and assigns, for said stock in trade and merchandise, seventy-five (75) per cent of the present wholesale cost at the present time, with freight added, at present rates and classification, to be paid as soon as invoice is taken and the cost as aforesaid of the entire stock in trade and merchandise aforesaid is "ascertained.”
In pursuance to the contract the parties agreed that the wholesale cost of such stock was $5,309, and that freight on the same “at present rates and classification” was $1,327.25. Seventy-five per cent of the valuation of the stock is $3,981.75. Seventy-five per cent of the freight is $995.44. The sum of these two amounts is $4,977.19. This was paid, by defendant to plaintiff. The difference between the whole amount of freight, $1,327.25, and seventy-five per cent thereof, $995.44, is $331.81. Plaintiff claims that this additional sum should be paid. Defendant resists its payment. The controversy is upon the terms of the contract above recited. The parties agree that seventy-five per cent of the valuation of the stock should be paid; but plaintiff contends that defendant should pay the whole of the freight, and defendant maintains that he should pay only seventy per cent of the same; that is to say, that the words “seventy-five per cent” refer to the freight as-well as to the stock; or in other words, that freight should be added to seventy-five per cent of the stock, and not to the whole. The District Court gave j udgment upon the plaintiff's view, from which the appeal is taken.
Henry G. Smith, for Appellant.
J. W. Kinsley, for Kespondent.

Opinion:
De Witt, J.
No briefs were filed or authorities cited by •counsel. This court must construe the contract, and from its •terms find its intent. The language of the contract is of the nature of a Delphic oracle, and is possibly open to two constructions ; but we are of opinion that the circumstances throw light upon the intent. The subject of the contract was the sale of the entire stock of goods. Its wholesale value was discounted twenty-five per cent. We believe that we can see a reason for this. It is known to merchants, trading as these j^arties were, that even undamaged goods become shop-worn, out of style, out of demand, out of season, and their salable qualities are variously affected by the simple lapse of time. Would not a buyer naturally demand, and a seller accede to a reduction from Avholesale prices for these reasons? Otherwise there would be no reason for a buyer to take such a stock. If he were to pay full wholesale prices, might he not better go to the wholesale dealer directly, and buy Avholly new goods? We can thus see a reason for a reduction on the goods. But this reason does not obtain with freight. Freight is money paid for the transportation of goods. The money so paid does not deteriorate in value. It does not become shop-wom, out •of style, out of season, out of demand, or for any reason unsalable. It is worth as much on old goods as on new. It is itself worth as much old as new. In fact, age gives it an .additional value, if we consider accrued interest, Avhich, however, is not here under view, for the parties agreed to freight at "present rates and classification." These Avords aid us in our vieAv that the parties did not intend any discount on the freight.
The contract is not clear in its terms, but we are satisfied, for the reasons above suggested, that the judgment of the District Court must be affirmed.