{
  "id": 8660967,
  "name": "A. W. BILLINGS v. WILLIAM WILBY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Billings v. Wilby",
  "decision_date": "1918-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "571",
  "last_page": "574",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "175 N.C. 571"
    }
  ],
  "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": "144 N. Y., 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2264051
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/144/0209-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N. C., 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269514
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/149/0032-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270345
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0195-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 455,
    "char_count": 8189,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.698313629027881e-08,
      "percentile": 0.493074306648766
    },
    "sha256": "7900992fc8110ebd0550c497b7ec3e3f647e68cb0f04361d76d583a09c81844c",
    "simhash": "1:d90c3d2c9e01b4e1",
    "word_count": 1394
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:50:36.007196+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. W. BILLINGS v. WILLIAM WILBY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.\nThere was evidence on tbe part of tbe plaintiff tending to show that plaintiff, a contractor of extended experience and engaged at tbe time in \u201cgrading off tbe foundation\u201d for tbe new Federal building at \"Wilkesboro, N. C., on 16 January, 1916, received a letter from William Wilby, defendant, then at Selma, Ala., and who bad tbe subcontract for tbe plumbing and laying tbe sewer line, inviting a proposition from plaintiff for cutting tbe ditch and laying tbe line, etc., according to survey and specifications which bad been already made by tbe government; that on 13 January, 1916, plaintiff replied by telegram from North Wilkesboro as follows:\n\u201cWill put in sewer line according to specifications for $500, you furnish pipe and material North Wilkesboro. Wire at once if' you accept this. (Signed) A. U. BilliNGS.\u201d\nOn same date defendant sent by wire a night letter as follows:\n\u201cForty cents per running foot is best I can do, I furnish pipe and you cement. I can do it myself for less than this, but want it put in before my man comes. If I cannot get it for tbe above amount, will wait and put it in myself. (Signed) William Wilby.\u201d\nTo this plaintiff replied by telegram at 10:40 A. M., 14 January:\n\u201cNight letter received. Will accept. Send-contract signed at once.\u201d\nThat plaintiff was ready, able, and willing to do tbe work and bad tbe bands and tools there for the purpose, and on tbe night before be was to begin, which was several days after plaintiff\u2019s last message, plaintiff received a telegram from defendant to tbe effect that be would advise plaintiff in a day or two about tbe work; that defendant never did advise plaintiff further about it, but soon thereafter undertook tbe work himself, etc.; that plaintiff\u2019s damage in tbe loss of tbe contract was about $250.\nOn matters relevant to tbe issue, defendant introduced bis own deposition to tbe effect \u201cthat be was plumber resident in Selma, Ala., and bad a subcontract for installing tbe plumbing and sewer for tbe building, and, in addition to tbe telegrams already in evidence,, there was attached to bis\u2019deposition two other telegrams in terms as follows, one purporting to be from plaintiff to defendant, dated 18 January, 3 P. M.:\n\u201cI accept your sewer proposition. Wire at once if you accept mine. Start work at once in tbe morning. (Signed) A. U. BilliNGS.\u201d\nAnd another from' defendant to plaintiff:\n\u201cWill advise yon witbin next few days regarding sewer proposition.\n(Signed) William: Wilby.\u201d\nIn reference to tbe additional telegrams attached to the deposition and purporting to be from plaintiff, \u201cI accept yonr sewer proposition. Wire at once if you accept mine. Start work in morning,\u201d plaintiff recalled, testified that he did not send nor authorize any one else to send such a telegram. On perusal of this evidence, we are clearly of opinion that a definite contract to let the work in question was constituted between these parties by the telegram of plaintiff, dated 14 January, in reply to defendant\u2019s night letter and in terms: \u201cNight letter received; will accept. Send contract signed at once.\u201d and this result. is not affected by the closing words of the message, \u201cSend contract signed,\u201d etc.\nThis, by correct interpretation, meaning merely that it was the desire and preference of the plaintiff that the agreement they had made should be written out and formally signed by the parties, and it is the recognized position here and elsewhere that, when the parties have entered into a valid and binding agreement, the contract will not be avoided because of their intent and purpose to have the same more formally drawn up and executed and which purpose was not carried out. Gooding v. Moore, 150 N. C., 195; Teal v. Templeton, 149 N. C., 32; Sanders v. Pottlizer Bros. Trust Co., 144 N. Y., 209; Clark on Contracts, 2 Ed., 29, and authorities cited.\nIn Moore's case, supra, it was held that \u201cwhen parties to an oral contract contemplate a subsequent reducing of it to writing as a matter of convenience and prudence and not as a condition precedent, it is binding on them though their intent to formally express the agreement in writing was never carried out.\u201d\nAnd in 144 N. Y., supra, \u201cIf the correspondence and telegrams between the parties contain all the details of a contract, it is enforcible though they intended that their agreement should be formally expressed in a single paper which, when signed, should be the evidence of what already had been agreed upon.\u201d\nThis being the correct position, we must approve his Honor\u2019s charge on the first issue that, \u201cif the jury believe the evidence and find the facts to be as testified by the witness and disclosed by the documents produced in evidence, you will answer the first issue 'Yes.\u2019 \u201d\nThe parties having entered into definite contract by the message from the plaintiff of date 14 January, the additional message introduced by the defendant, even if genuine, evinces no purpose to abandon any rights he had acquired or to reopen the question of what had been done between them, and if it were otherwise, the charge of his Honor, when considered in reference to tbe testimony and tbe conditions presented, could \u2022only mean .and was clearly intended to mean tbat if tbe parol evidence given by plaintiff to tbe effect tbat be bad never sent tbis telegram or authorized any one else to do so, should be accepted by tbe jury and tbe fact so found, such message should not be allowed to affect the determination of tbe issue.\nOn tbe record, we find no error in tbe charge or in tbe refusal of tbe motion to nonsuit, and tbe judgment below must be affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hayes & Jones for plaintiff.",
      "Fairley & Ilendren for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. W. BILLINGS v. WILLIAM WILBY.\n(Filed 22 May, 1918.)\n1. Contracts \u2014 Telegrams\u2014Offer and Acceptance \u2014 Request for Formal Contract.\nA subcontractor for constructing a sewer telegraphed an offer to another, offering him a certain price per running foot to do the work, who unconditionally accepted by telegram, adding \u201cSend contract signed at once\u201d: Held,, the telegrams constituted a definite and binding contract, unaffected by the fact that the request for a more formal contract had not been complied with.\n2. Same \u2014 Confirmation\u2014Inquiry\u2014Instructions\u2014Trials.\nWhere a definite and binding contract for constructing a sewer ha\u00bb been made by offer and acceptance by telegraph, evidence that the contractor again telegraphed his acceptance with the further words, \u201cWire at once if you accept\u201d my proposition, does not indicate his purpose to-abandon, any of his rights under his contract or to reopen the question; and where his evidence denies the sending of the later telegram, it is-proper, under any view of the evidence, as in this case, for the court to instruct the jury to answer the issue in the affirmative if they \u201cbelieve the evidence and find the facts to be as testified by the witness and disclosed by the documents produced in evidence.\u201d\nActioN, tried before Garter, J., at October Term, 1917, of Wilkes.\nTbe action was to recover damages for breach of an alleged contract conferring on plaintiff the right to construct the pipe line for a sewer from the new Federal building in Wilkesboro, N. 0. On denial of the contract and any and all liability thereunder, the jury rendered the following verdict:\n1. Did defendant enter into a contract with plaintiff A. U. Billings-to employ said Billings to cut the ditch and lay the sewer line at the-price of 40 cents per running foot, as alleged in the complaint? Answer : \u201cYes.\u201d\n2. Was the plaintiff able, willing, and ready to do and perform the work according to contract? Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n3. Did defendant breach said contract as alleged in the complaint?' Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n4. What damages, if any, are plaintiff entitled to recover of defendant? Answer: \u201c$220.\u201d\nJudgment on the verdict and defendant excepted and appealed, assigning for error chiefly a refusal to nonsuit plaintiff and the instruction of his Honor on the first issue as follows: \u201cYou are instructed that if you believe the evidence and find the facts to be .as testified by the witnesses- and described by the documents produced in evidence, you will answer the -first issue \u2018Yes.\u2019 \u201d\nHayes & Jones for plaintiff.\nFairley & Ilendren for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0571-01",
  "first_page_order": 625,
  "last_page_order": 628
}