186 Mass. 489 | Mass. | 1904
The plaintiffs having street railway ties for sale were called upon by the defendant’s purchasing agent who offered them a price less than they asked and also offered to pay in stock of either of two railway companies. The defendant admits that the offer of payment in stock was an offer to allow the plaintiffs the choice as to the company whose stock they should take. At the interview no bargain was made, the purchasing agent going away to ascertain whether the defendant would pay the price asked, and the partner who had acted for the plaintiffs to ascertain whether they would take pay in stock. After a few days the plaintiffs on April 20, 1903, wrote:
“ Mr. Allen and I have decided to let you have the electric ties you saw the other morning, at 22/* each down to 4 in. face, loaded on the cars at So. Vernon. Will take stock in either the Greenfield and Turners Falls or Deerfield roads. Please let me hear at once if this is all right.
“ Respectfully,
“ Allen & Aldrich.”
In reply the defendant wrote as follows :
“ Your letter relating to ties has been received and I think we can use your ties as per your agreement. Will you kindly let me know when you intend to load these ties and be sure and load them in as large cars as possible and put in full loads. Please ship the first car to Greenfield consigned to the Bay State Construction Co.
“ Yours very truly,
“ Bay State Construction Co.”
The ties were delivered without further communication between the parties, and at the trial the defendant agreed that it received them, that they were satisfactory and that the number of ties and the price stated in the plaintiff’s declaration were correct. On July 6, the plaintiffs went to the defendant’s office and by an oral bargain sold the defendant more ties at the same rate. Whether on this occasion they told the defendant’s purchasing agent that they wanted the Greenfield and Turners
Before suit was brought the defendant sent by mail to the plaintiffs four shares of stock in the Greenfield and Deerfield Railway Company and a check for $38.02 and the stock and check were returned. After the suit was brought a legal tender of the stock and of the amount of money for which the check was drawn with interest and costs was made and the stock and money so tendered were duly brought into court and the tender was pleaded by the defendant as its defence to the action.
At the trial the defendant asked the judge to rule that by the letter of April 20 the plaintiffs gave to the defendant the option of delivering either stock. The judge refused to give the ruling and instructed the jury that the letter did not necessarily mean that the option was to be exercised by the defendant. The exception to this refusal to rule and to the contrary instruction given raises the principal question in the case.
The defendant contends that when the true meaning of a written instrument is doubtful it must be construed most strongly against the person using the doubtful language. This doctrine is sometimes applied in favor of a party who has been misled into advancing money. See Barney v. Newcomb, 9 Cush. 46, 56. But it should be applied only in the last resort, when all other rules of construction fail. Boston v. Richardson, 13 Allen, 146. Our first duty is to put ourselves in the place of the parties to the instrument and then to read it giving to its words their plain and ordinary meaning in the light of the circumstances and in view of the subject matter, the acts of the parties and their relations to each other. Farnsworth v. Boardman, 131 Mass. 115.
The plaintiffs had for sale railway ties and were asking for them twenty-two cents apiece. They were not in the business of buying stocks. The defendant was not a stock broker dealing in options, but a construction company, buying ties and offering
According to the talk the option to take either stock was in the plaintiffs. To make a valid contract on the only lines under consideration by both parties nothing more was necessary than for the plaintiffs to agree to take stock in payment and for the defendant to assent to the price demanded. The performance of such a contract, but not its making, would involve the choice by the plaintiffs of one of the two stocks. If upon the interchange of the letters the option was in the defendant instead of in the plaintiffs a new term had been imported into the proposed bargain. If the language used so meant, such would be the legal result of the letter and the reply, but not otherwise.
To show that such is the meaning of the plaintiffs’ letter the defendant quotes as a definition of the word “ either ” the words “one or the other of two, taken indifferently”, while the dictionary to which reference is made adds “ or as the case requires.” Common definitions of the word are “one of two”, “the one or the other.” But the word when used in a connection which implies a choice of action on the part of the person using it indicates that the option is in the person who is to do the act involving the choice. It is the person who is to take one of two apples who may take either apple.
“ spirits when they please,
Can either sex assume, or both; ”*
So with the word “take.” While it may be used in a passive sense, as “ to receive ”, or “ to accept ”, its more usual and ordinary meaning is in an active sense “ to procure ”, “ to make selection of”, “to choose.” It is not until the circumstances under
As there was evidence that before the certificates for Greenfield and Deerfield stock were sent the plaintiffs made known their election to take payment in the other stock the ruling requested that upon all the evidence the defendant was entitled to a verdict was wrong for the reason already stated, as well as for another. Some of the ties were sold on July 6, and it was admitted that they were delivered and that the prices charged were correct and that they were not paid for unless in the Greenfield and Deerfield stock. But the plaintiffs’ evidence tended to show that at the time of that sale they said they would take the other stock and that that statement was assented to by the purchasing agent. If so the plaintiffs had a clear right to a verdict in respect of the ties sold on. July 6. The evidence was abundant that the purchasing agent had authority at that time to make the bargain which the plaintiffs testified then was made.
The defendant now contends that it was the duty of the judge to construe the letter and not leave it to the jury as a question
The judge did construe the^ letter and gave it a construction contrary to that for which the defendant contended. We think that the course pursued followed as near as might be that approved in Bascom v. Smith, ubi supra, of undertaking to construe the contract with reference to all the circumstances which the evidence tended to establish as existing when it was made and leaving it to the jury to determine whether the circumstances assumed had been established by the evidence. As was said in Bascom v. Smith “ This is not leaving the whole construction of a written contract to the jury.”
There was contradictory evidence as to what occurred on July 6. ' At that time neither party had attempted to designate to the other which of the two stocks should be used in the payment. The plaintiffs’ evidence tended to show that they then said to the purchasing agent, who then bought of them the second lot of ties that they would take the Turners Falls stock and that the agent replied “ All right, I will send it to you.” The defendant’s evidence tended to show that the defendant’s president said that the contract called for Deerfield and Northampton stock and that the plaintiff assented to that and told the officer to have the stock delivered and how to make out the certificates. The judge instructed the jury in substance that whatever the effect of the negotiations between the parties had been before that time, that if there was an agreement either way on July 6, that agreement by way of modification of the original contract would govern. To this instruction the defendant excepted, and now contends that it was wrong because the authority of the purchasing agent was limited to the buying of ties and did not extend to the modification of contracts. The bill of exceptions does not show that the question of the purchasing agent’s authority was raised at the trial. However this may have been, he then could buy ties for stock and we think the evidence discloses sufficient authority for him then to bind the defendant to pay in either stock for the ties first sold as well as for those then sold.
The same person who was the president of the defendant construction company held also the office of treasurer in each of the
The remaining contentions of the defendant are as to the amount of the recovery as affected by the value of the stock, by the time.of demand and by interest. The only evidence as to the value of the stock being that the market value and par value were the same, and there being sufficient evidence in our opinion to justify the jury in finding a demand of payment, the instructions excepted to were right.
Exceptions overruled.
Milton's Paradise Lost, Book 1, lines 423, 424.