{ "id": 8650947, "name": "CHARLES H. SIMPSON et al. v. T. H. PEGRAM et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Simpson v. Pegram", "decision_date": "1891-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "407", "last_page": "411", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "108 N.C. 407" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "87 N. C., 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683747 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/87/0009-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 426, "char_count": 7378, "ocr_confidence": 0.547, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20759183257402267 }, "sha256": "35a1b5b179af72669544c4a4606380cbe6e9328afb3c9723720e3caaa73985cb", "simhash": "1:b2f234a789d0b151", "word_count": 1231 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:38:29.877932+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CHARLES H. SIMPSON et al. v. T. H. PEGRAM et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "M\u00e9rrimo n, C. J.\n\u2014after stating the case: In the course of the business of trade, \u201cletter-heads,\u201d \u201cbill-h\u00e9ads,\u201d and like advertising mediums, when identified and \u25a0 connected with the party using \u00e1nd> giving-them out-for! his own . purpose and advantage, have point and significance, and the more when they appear directly in connection with and give or reasonably may give cast and meaning to -business correspondence and transactions in their nature uncert fin and indeterminate and requiring explanation as to their meaning and purpose They may and oftentimes ought to be taken as indicative and explanatory of' the correspondence or transactions left uncertain and imperfect without them, and have more or less weight according to their nature, connections, application, bearing and the circumstances. Oftentimes, the very purpose of the use of them is to give the public, as well individuals, notice of the advertiser\u2019s business, its nature, where it is carried on, and to invite correspondence, business and trade transactions.\nWhen a person thus holds himself out \u2014 declares the nature of his business and purpose to another person with whom he deals, in the absence of explanation in some way appearing to the contrary \u2014 the reasonable inference is that his contract, the transaction pertinent to his business, was of the nature contemplated by that business thus made known. And that he thus made known his business, may in a proper case be shown by any competent evidence. Thus, if such person should, under a \u201c letter-head \u201d declaring the nature and place of his business, write' and send a letter to a person engaged in a business at a distance from him, with whom he washed and proposed to have a business transaction pertinent to his business, without particularly specifying its nature and terms, and a transaction accordingly took place, the inference would be that it was such as his business contemplated, and the letter, including the \u201cletter-head,\u201d would be competent evidence of the fact in a proper case. The true office of such evidence would be \u201c to interpret the otherwise indeterminate intention of the parties, and to ascertain the nature and .extent of their contracts, arising not from express stipulation but from mere implication and presumptions and acts of a doubtful and equivocal character; and to fix and explain the meaning of words and expressions of doubtful or various senses. On this principle the usage or habit of trade or conduct of an individual, which is known to the person who deals with him, may be given in evidence to prove what was the contract between them.\u201d 2 Gf. Ev., \u00a7 251. In the notes to Wigglesworth v. Dollison, 1 Smith\u2019s Leading Cases, 300, it is said, \u201cThe usage of an individual in his own business as to the manner of performing it, and the like, if known to the party dealing with him, is competent to show that the contract was on those terms.\u201d Norris v. Fowler, 87 N. C., 9.\nIn the case before us, the defendant Pegram wrote to the plaintiffs immediately, under a printed \u201c letter-head,\u201d stating the character of his business \u2014 that of a \u201cGeneral Merchandise Broker\u201d \u2014 and soliciting \u201cconsignments\u201d for the purpose of his business. The letter was in nowise inconsistent with such business purpose. It was in material respects indefinite in its terms. It did not contain a proposition to purchase goods or to pay for the same presently or in the future \u2014 it simply asked that the goods specified be sent to him promptly. By his letter, he represented to the plaintiffs that he was such broker \u2014 that he desired consignments of goods for the purpose of his business \u2014 he asked that certain goods pertinent for his business be sent to him at once. Taking his representations as to his business \u2014 his requests\u2014 the whole together constituted evidence to go to the jury tending to prove that he wished and intended that the goods be consigned to him to be sold, not as his own, but as the plaintiffs\u2019,' in- the course of his business, and that the plaintiffs so understood, intended and agreed; and sent him the goods accordingly. Pegram\u2019s business as \u201c General Merchandise Broker\u2019\u2019 did not by its nature imply that he purchased or took title to the goods he sold \u2014 on the contrary, it might be that he sold such merchandise for one person to another for compensation, and to that end, and to facilitate his business, he \u201csolicited\u201d consignments of goods. He sent his letter-head in connection with and as part of his letter to the plaintiffs, and the whole constituted evidence of his contract with them and tended to prove that the flour in controversy belonged to them. The Court should have so instructed the jury, leaving them to determine its weight.\nThere is error. The plaintiffs are entitled to a new, trial..\nError.", "type": "majority", "author": "M\u00e9rrimo n, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. R. B. Glenn, for plaintiffs.", "Mr. J. S. Grogan, for defendants.," ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHARLES H. SIMPSON et al. v. T. H. PEGRAM et al.\nContract \u2014 Evidence\u2014\u201c Letter-heads \u201d and Advertisements.\nUpon an issue whether goods had been delivered to defendant as upon consignment, or upon an absolute sale \u2014 the letter containing the order being indefinite on this point \u2014 the \u201cletter-head\u201d of the defendant, printe 1 upon the paper upon which the order was written, in which he described his business as \u201c General Merchandise Broker \u201d and solicited consignments, was some evidence to be submitted to and considered by the jury in determining the nature of the transaction.\nCivil action, tried at February Term, 1891, of FoRSYti-i Superior Court, Bynum, J., presiding.\n' The plaintiffs brought this action to recover the value of a considerable quantity of flour from the defendant Pegram .and his co-defendants, who are his assignees. Pegram ordered from the plaintiffs the flour in question by letter, of which the following is a copy:\n. ' OFFICE OF\n. T. H. Pegram, Jr..\nOsneral Merchandise Broker.\nCONSIGNMENTS SOLICITED.\nAnd dtaler in Wagons, Grain, Hay, Mill Feed. etc.\n\u2022 Winston, N. 6., Nov. 14-, 1887.\nMessrs. Simpson, Bass & Go., Richmond, Va.\n: Gents Please send me the following:\n100 bags 981b Bob White 50 Bbls.\n100 \u201c 49 \u201c \u2022 \u201c 25 \u201c\n200 \u201c 24 \u201c\u2022 25 \u201c\n400 12 \u201c \u2019 \u201c 25 \u201c\nShip as soon as possible, as I need the goods right now. Want fresh goods. 1 \u2022 Yours truly,\u201d\nT. H. Pegram, Jr.\nThe plaintiffs contend the flour was consigned to defendant Pegram and not sold to him.\nThe defendants admit the flour in controversy was received by the defendant Pegram, and the most of it was in his possession at the time of his assignment to Buxton and Grogan; passed into the hands of the assignees, and the proceeds of said flour is now in their hands, but the defendants contend the flour was bought by the defendant Pegram and not consigned.\nThe following issue was submitted to the jury: \u201cWas the flour in controversy in this action consigned to the defendant Pegram by plaintiffs?\u201d\nThe plaintiffs offered in evidence and read to the jury the letter above set forth, and rested their case.\n. His Honor instructed the jury that, upon the- evidence offered by the plaintiffs they should render a verdict for the defendants and answer the issue No. Plaintiffs excepted.\nThere was a verdict for the defendants, and thereupon the Court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant Pegrara for the value of the flour, and that defendants\u2019 assignees go without day. The plaintiffs having excepted, appealed.\nMr. R. B. Glenn, for plaintiffs.\nMr. J. S. Grogan, for defendants.," }, "file_name": "0407-01", "first_page_order": 441, "last_page_order": 445 }