Court Opinion

ID: 9808110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:28:21.892201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:03.294631
License: Public Domain

RodmaN, J.,
Dissenting. I do not concur in the judgment of the Court. I think the judgment below dismissing the action should be affirmed. It is clear to me that taking all the evidence for the plaintiffs as true, they have failed to make out a case entitling them to recover. On the contrary th e ease presented by them is fatally defective:—
1. The writing signed by the intestate of defendant; and' others, which the plaintiffs exhibit as the foundation of their claim, is an offer to guaranty that if plaintiffs would furnish Paul with goods to sell as agent for plaintiffs, he (Paul] would account for the same, or that in case of his failure to do so, each of the signers would severally make good his proportion of the loss to an amount not exceeding $100. The form of the writing is an acknowledgment of indebtedness to the plaintiffs, conditioned to be void in a certain case. But the substance and effect of the writing is as I have stated. If the object be justice, we must in all cases look beyond the form into the substance and effect of a contract; and especially is this true of commercial instruments of writing. Men of business are rarely acquainted with the forms or technicalities of the law; and in order to ascertain, the intent of their contracts, we must construe them without reference to form or technicality. The writing, however else if may be construed, could be nothing but an offer. The plaintiffs on receiving it were not bound *67to intrust Paul with goods to sell as their agent, and no contract was completed between them and the signers of the offer, until its acceptance was(notified in some way to the signers. No authority need be cited for this, but I refer to 2 Pars, on Contracts, 12. Notice of assent may often be inferred from the conduct of the parties, but I find no evidence of it in this case.
In the case of an offer to guaranty payment for goods to be sold, or the fidelity of an agent to be intrusted with goods for sale, it has been held that notice is required, not merely of assent to the offer, but of the fact that the agent has actually been intrusted with goods for sale, according to the contract; and some cases say the guarantor should be notified of the value of the goods. 2 Pars, on Contracts, 12, et seq.
I refer to two cases only, not only because they are in point, but they settle the question discussed in this Court in Shewell v. Knox, 1 Dev. 404: On the 25 th of September, 1882, Calvin Jones (of Ealeigh) wrote to the plaintiffs, merchants in New York, offering to become security for any goods Miss Miller might purchase, &c. The plaintiffs thereupon sold goods to Miss Miller on the faith of the guaranty which they kept,-but gave no notice thereof to the defendant. Miss Miller failed to pay; suit was brought against the defendant, and the Supreme Court of the United States gave judgment for him, on the ground of the want of notice that his offer had been accepted and acted on. Adams v. Jones, 12 Pet. 207. The second case is Reynolds v. Douglass, 12 Pet. 497, and is to the same effect. It is to be noted that in both these cases the letter offering to guaranty was addressed to a particular firm.
As an authority that no notice was required in this case, the Court cites Williams v. Collins, 2 Car. L. R. 382, decided as far back as 1816. In my opinion the decision does not support the proposition. The instrument on which the a'c*68tion was brought was addressed by the defendant to the plaintiffs, and was in substance this: “ If you will sell Henry a vessel, &c., I will guaranty any contract he may enter into with you for the same, &c.” On the failure of Henry to pay his note given for the articles bought, plaintiff sued and got judgment against him. The defence was that by due diligence plaintiff might have' made his judgment out of Henry, and that by his want of diligence he had discharged defendant. The Court held that by the terms of the guaranty, the defendant on Henry’s failure to pay became absolutely bound to pay the debt, and that plaintiff was not bound to any effort to collect it from Henry. I think the decision was right, although Taylok, O. J., dissented. But there was no question as to notice, and the case has no bearing on the present. Seawell, J., said the contract was an absolute one, but he meant only that it became absolute on Henry’s failure to pay. It could not be absolute at its making, because Henry was certainly liable, and defendant only on his failure. Draughan v. Bunting, 9 Ire. 10, a later and leading case, defines decisively when a contract is collateral; it is so whenever some' one else is liable in the first instance, and the promise sued on is super-added. See also Beeker v. Saunders, 6 Ire. 380, and Spencer v. Carter, 4 Jones 287.
I think that the defendant was entitled to notice that Paul had been intrusted with goods to sell as plaintiffs’ agent, and as there is no .'pretence that he had it, he was never bound.
2. It positively appears from the evidence for the plaintiffs that the offer was never accepted or acted on. The plaintiffs sold Paul goods. They do not say that they intrusted him with goods to sell as their agent. The defendant agreed. t.o be liable only for Paul’s fidelity as.an agent, not for his solvency as a purchaser. The practical difference is great, and needs not to be enlarged on. The Court *69are inclined to agree with me on this point. If my opinion and the inclination of the opinion of the Court are right, the plaintiffs can never recover. Why hold out hopes that can only lead them into deeper bogs of litigation ? If their case is doomed to death, give it quickly the coup de grace, the merciful blow which ends hope and suffering. It is to the plaintiffs’ interest as it is to that of the republic “ ut sit finis litium.”
Error.
Pee, Curiam. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.