King v. Sheward

Garoutte, J. In this cause the learned judge of the trial court rendered the following opinion:—•

[236]“ The plaintiffs are a clothing-house in Chicago, and the action is for a balance due on a claim for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The main item of difference, about which the contention in this suit is, arises from a loss on the return of some of the goods. The defendant ordered the goods by a letter to, a Mr. Cook, who was acting for the plaintiffs, the Chicago house, asking him to send not to exceed two thousand dollars’ worth of boys’ and children’s clothing, and adds: ‘I want the privilege of returning anything I want to, but if you take proper care, I will not return anything, in all probability.’ Mr. Cook turned this letter over to the plaintiffs, the Chicago house, and they shipped the lot of goods to fill the order, and on January 5, 1889, Mr. Cook sent the.defendant a letter, in which he says: ‘I am sending you a little over two thousand dollars, so you can return anything you think will not suit your market.’

“ The evidence shows that the plaintiffs .sent goods to the value of $476.62 more than Mr. Sheward’s letter called for, and the bill accompanying the goods contained the following statement: ‘ We will allow no goods to he returned after ten days from their receipt.’

“ Mr. Cook testifies that the first time they were notified that Mr. Sheward found fault with the goods was his letter of May 8, 1889, in which he states that Mr. Fitzackerly had discovered, in going through the stock, that they did not need the long-pant suits, and asked the privilege of returning them, he paying the freight charges and getting other goods in place thereof, and asking Cook to wire him if he would consent. Cook turned this letter over to the house, and the plaintiffs at once telegraphed Mr. Sheward, on the same day, the 15th of May, and wrote Mr. Sheward refusing to permit him to return the goods. May 15th, after receiving the telegram from the plaintiffs, Mr. Sheward writes another letter, in which he says he had not handled boys’ clothing enough to find out he had made a mistake, ‘ and I ask you to help me out.’ On May 22, 1889,' plaintiffs wrote another letter to the defendant, in answer to his [237]