Majority
Headnote
Statute op Frauds—Sale op Goods—Sufficiency op Memorandum. Plaintiffs, wishing to purchase wine from defendant, telegraphed him, “Will you ship us one or tWo cars sherry?” to which hé replied, “Can furnish one, perhaps two, cars sherry, fifty-two and one-half cents, including cooperage, against thirty days’ acceptance: ” Plaintiffs then wired, “At prices quoted, former terms, you can ship two cars by Sunset route. ” Defendant telegraphed, “Price net, fifty-two and one-half cents, without any rebate. If you understand it that way, answer;” and plaintiffs replied, “If you cannot do better, will accept your terms and price. Ship Sunset, one dollar rate. ” Held, that the telegrams constituted a sufficient contract in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds.The telegrams which appear in the appeal book establish a legal contract for the sale by defendant, and the purchase by plaintiff, of a car load of sherry wine. Taken together, the telegrams contain all the essential elements of a contract, viz. parties, considera
The testimony further shows a violation by defendant of said contract and its refusal to carry out the same because the wine was sold to some other person. The plaintiff’s damages because of such violation is clearly established, and the judgment rendered—$475—is fully justified by the testimony submitted, and is therefore affirmed, with costs. All concur.