Case Name: DETROIT COPPER & BRASS ROLLING MILLS v. WISE et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-03-10
Citations: 297 F. 460
Docket Number: No. 228
Parties: DETROIT COPPER & BRASS ROLLING MILLS v. WISE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 297
Pages: 460–460

Head Matter:
DETROIT COPPER & BRASS ROLLING MILLS v. WISE et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 10, 1924.)
No. 228.
1. Contracts <©=>22(!) — Acceptance must be identical with offer.
The acceptance of an offer is required to be identical with the offer, or there is no meeting of minds.
2. Appeal and error <©=>842(I) — Whether minds of parties to contract met held question of fact.
It is’ a question of fact to decide from uncontradieted evidence whether the minds of the parties met.
t§=aFor oilier oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.
Action by the Detroit Copper & Brass Rolling Mills against Hattie C. Wise and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
See, also, 282 Fed. 897.
Purcell, Cullen & Pitcher, of Watertown, N. Y. (F. E. Cullen and Henry Purcell, both of Watertown, N. Y., and Sherwin A. Hill, of Detroit, Mich., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
W. W. Kelley, of Watertown, N. Y. (Delos M. Cosgrove, of Water-town, N. Y., of counsel), for defendants in error.
■ Before PIOUGH, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Every agreement is the result of an offer and an acceptance thereof. The acceptance is required to be identical with the offer, or there is no meeting of minds. Neer v. Lang, 252 Fed. 575, 164 C. C. A. 491. This is true, although there may be some matters not . material omitted from both offer and acceptance. West India, etc., Co. v. Chicago, etc., Co., 249 Fed. 338, 161 C. C. A. 346.
It is a question of fact only, to decide from uncontradicted evidence, whether the minds of the parties did meet. The court below held that there was no such meeting. We are of the same opinion, and it would serve no useful purpose to dwell upon the details.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.