236 F. 536 | 3rd Cir. | 1916
When this controversy was here before (217 Fed. 747, 133 C. C. A. 441), we held that the case should have gone to the jury on the question whether' Hoblitzell, who bad carried on the correspondence for the Meyersdale Coal Company, was authorized to bind his company by such a contract as had been sued upon. We also said;
“As we read the letters, they show a complete meeting of minds upon all terms of the contract, and we regard the signing of the suggested form merely as a desirable convenience and not as a condition precedent.”
*538 “You understand that we wish the monthly shipment spread oyer each month, and by that we mean not to ship any large amount on one day and then not ship any more for a long time.”
The judgment is reversed, and a new trial is awarded.