Meyercord Co. v. Clark Wise & Co.

TYLER, P. J.

This action is one in

assumpsit

for goods sold and delivered in the agreed sum of $450, representing the value of some 7,200 decalcomania transfers.

Defendants, by their answer, denied any indebtedness in a greater sum than $165.05, and alleged that the contract was procured by fraudulent representations. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the full amount prayed for, and defendants appeal.

It appears from the evidence that plaintiff corporation is a manufacturer of what is known as decalcomania transfers, which are designs or printed figures on specially prepared paper so manufactured as to be permanently affixed to furniture or wood.

Defendants are copartners engaged in the piano and musical instrument business, and use transfers indicating their

[362]

firm name which they affix to the fall boards of pianos and talking machines. They were desirous of securing some of these articles in their business, and accordingly one of the officers of defendant company wrote to the plaintiff corporation that they were in the market for decalcomania transfers, The parties had transacted business together for a period of over thirty years. Upon receiving this communication plaintiff sent its representative to interview defendants. Samples were submitted, and after a discussion concerning the price an order was obtained from defendants for 2,500 each of two sizes of transfers at an agreed price of six and one-half cents per transfer. The agreement was reduced "to writing and it provided that the order was not subject to countermand. About a month thereafter defendants advised plaintiff that there must have been some mistake concerning the price, as they had received quotations from other firms at a much lower figure than their agreement with plaintiff called for, and in this communication they requested plaintiff, in the event that there was no mistake, to cancel the order. In reply thereto plaintiff informed defendants that it had telegraphed to its representatives to get in touch with them and explain the difference in price to defendants’ satisfaction. The representative called but no adjustment was had between the parties. Shortly thereafter the entire order, including an overage of some 2,200 transfers, was received by defendants. A lengthy correspondence was thereafter entered into between the parties which resulted in plaintiff agreeing to allow a discount of fifteen per cent from the invoice as rendered. Defendants refused to pay any sum in excess of $168.05. Negotiations for a settlement were thereupon ended and the present suit followed.