Wadsworth v. Adams

by John Marshall Harlan

United States Supreme Court

138 U.S. 380

Wadsworth  v.  Adams

The undisputed facts in the case are as follows: Adams went to the city of New York for the purpose of finding a purchaser of the notes. He there offered them to J. J. McComb at a discount of 8 per cent. per annum. According to the plaintiff's testimony, McComb did not say whether he would take them or not, but put his clerk to making calculations in relation to them, and left his office to see if he could make arrangements to get the money in the event he bought the notes. On his return, McComb said he would give $350,000 for them, and requested plaintiff to telegraph that offer to De Bardeleben. Plaintiff told him that it was useless to send such a telegram, as De Bardeleben would not accept the offer. McComb insisting on his offer being sent, Adams telegraphed De Bardeleben from New York, under date of March 27, 1883: 'I can sell the five notes with mortgage for three hundred and fifty thousand dollars cash, the right of trustee to sell and trasfe r being all right. Answer.' It does not appear at what hour of the day this telegram was sent, but the plaintiff testified that just before he left McComb, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the 27th of March, 1883, he asked him what he should do if De Bardeleben refused the offer of $350,000. McComb replied that 'if De Bardeleben refused the offer of $350,000, then he would take the notes at De Bardeleben's proposition,-that is, at eight per cent. per annum discount.' Adams then went from New York to Philadelphia; and he testified that, after leaving McComb on the afternoon of the 27th of March, he did not see or have any communication with him in relation to the notes or their sale or purchase.

Under date of March 28, 1883, De Bardeleben telegraphed to Adams at Philadelphia, where the latter resided: 'Cannot accept offer.' Adamsimmediately, on the same day, replied by telegram from Philadelphia: 'Have made the negotiation on the terms you gave me. Bring on your papers with Smith's opinion on the matters I mentioned to you. Let me know here when I shall meet you in New York.' On the same day there was sent from New York, in the name of Adams, this telegram to De Bardeleben: 'Please answer my telegram of yesterday.' In reference to the latter telegram, which was received by De Bardeleben on the day of its date, the plaintiff was asked on cross-examination whether he did not send it. The bill of exceptions states: 'After some hesitation he said possibly he might have done so, but had no recollection of going back to New York on the 28th. He was then asked by defendant if he had not given McComb authority to send said dispatch in his name; to which he said, 'possibly I may have, done so, but I have no recollection of it.' Upon further cross-examination, he said he had not sent said dispatch, nor had he any recollection that he authorized McComb to send it in his name.' He further testified, on cross-examination, that he told McComb that De Bardeleben, for whose wife and children Wadsworth was trustee, 'wanted money very badly, and that he wanted it as soon as possible; that he told McComb this while talking to him about the sale of said notes.' Why Adams felt obliged to inform McComb of his principal's urgent need for money does not appear from the evidence.

De Bardeleben replied, on the 29th of March, to Adams' Philadelphia telegram of the 28th, in these words: 'You are too late. Have disposed of the notes.' Adams telegraphed to De Bardeleben, under date of the 30th: 'You are too late. You gave me explicit authority to sell at certain price, you to pay my commission. I wired you an offer I had below price you had named. You answered you could not accept offer, but said nothing about withdrawal of my authority to sell. I then sold to J. J. McComb, of Dobbs' Ferry, New York, on terms authorized by you, and you should confirm that sale forthwith. Answer.' Under date of March 31st De Bardeleben telegraphed to Adams: 'Your effort to beat me down in price has lost you the notes; will write.' To this Adams replied by telegram under date of April 2d: 'Assumptions of your dispatch wholly unfounded; no effort to beat you down; reported you the offer had. Your refusing the first offer led me to dispose of the notes at your offer, which I did, and so reported to you.' The plaintiff received from De Bardeleben, two or three days after it was written, the following letter, under date of March 31st: 'I telegraphed you this A. M.: 'Your effort to beat me down in price has lost you the notes; will write,'-which I now confirm. When you left me on the hotel piazza you said that if Gov. Smith pronounced the papers all right you would take one-half and McComb the balance, you to telegraph me so soon as you got home. When I received your telegram offering me three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, I saw you were trying to make me take as little as you could, which was not in accordance with our understanding, so I at once took steps to sell to another party, which have done. I am very sorry that it has turned out so, as I expected to have you in my big coal company that I am now forming, you to do the financiering and I to get the property in shape, by which each would have made a quarter of a million dollars. I very much regret that it looks as though we will not be interested together.'

It should be stated in this connection that when De Bardeleben received the telegram offering $350,000, and the telegram of March 28th from New York, requesting an answer to the New York telegram of the 27th, he was in conversation with Col. Ensley, who offered $380,000 for the notes. The offer was immediately accepted. So that the notes were sold by De Bardeleben before he received the telegram from Adams that he had sold them on the terms originally named to him.

Touching the first interview between Adams and McComb on the 27th in New York, the latter, a witness for the former, said: 'That he was acquainted with the parties to this suit; that he had known the plaintiff, Theodore Adams, for thirtyfive years; that he made a contract with Adams in New York city on the 27th day of March, 1883, for the purchase, through him, of five notes made by the Pratt Coal and Coke Company, payable to Frank L. Wadsworth, as trustee, in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars each; that by the terms of his said contract with Adams he (witness) was to take said notes at eight per cent. per annum discount; that the proposition by Adams to sell witness said notes was made in his (witness') office, No. 35 Broadway, New York city, on the 27th of March, 1883; that he did not accept the proposition immediately, but set his book-keeper to work on a careful calculation as to what the result would be to him (witness) on the said notes, if he purchased them on the terms offered, and on the supposition that he (witness) should borrow the money at six per cent. to carry the transaction; that while this calculation was being made he discussed the matter with Adams. and suggested that he (Adams) should telegraph an offer of a lump sum of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the five notes of one hundred thousand dollars each, which Adams, after some hesitation, did; that afterwards, and before parting, witness told Adams that if this offer was declined he would take the notes on the terms offered, namely, eight per cent. per annum discount, and that in either case he (witness) was the purchaser of the notes; that Adams told him he was authorized to make the sale; that all this transpired in his office, No. 35 Broadwar, New York city, at one interview.'

The court charged the jury, among other things, that 'the plaintiff was a special agent, clothed with special power to sell the five notes at a price specified by De Bardeleben, and that if, when the plaintiff, on March 27, 1883, first offered to sell said notes at said specified price to J. J. McComb, the said McComb did not express any acceptance of the offer, but told plaintiff to telegraph to said De Bardeleben a lump offer of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and also told plaintiff that if De Bardeleben declined that offer he (McComb) would take the notes at the price originally specified by De Bardeleben, amounting to three hundred and eighty thousand dollars; if afterwards, and in the same interview on said March 27, 1883, said McComb, in relation to said five notes, told plaintiff that if the said offer of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars was declined, he (McComb) would take the notes on the terms first offered, viz., eight per cent. discount, and that in either case he (McComb) was the purchaser of the notes,-all this amounted to a conditional offer only to take the notes at the specified price first offered, and did not impose upon the plaintiff the duty or obligation to communicate to his principal the fact that McComb was ready and willing to buy the notes at the said price at which they were first offered, amounting to three hundred and eighty thousand dollars; nd the failure of plaintiff to communicate that fact in any manner to his principal was not a breach of his duty, nor bad faith in itself, as he was only a special agent to sell at a fixed, specified price, and not an agent to get the best price he could obtain.' To this charge, and to each proposition contained in it, the defendant duly excepted. Among the requests by defendant for instructions was one to the effect that if the jury believed all the evidence their verdict should be in his favor. The court refused to so instruct the jury, and to its ruling in that respect the defendant excepted.

Jonn T. Morgan, for plaintiff in error.

Wayne MacVeagh and A. H. Wintersteen, for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 385-387 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes