TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brokaw-Eden Manufacturing Co. v. Lockerbie

Brokaw-Eden Manufacturing Company v. John W. Lockerbie

Brokaw-Eden Mfg. Co. v. Lockerbie, 130 N.E. 58 (Mass. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 1, 1921
Judges
Braley
Citations
130 N.E. 58237 Mass. 4631921 Mass. LEXIS 896
Headnotes
Contract, Construction. Sale. Agency, Commission. Words, “Purchased.” By the provisions of a contract in writing between a manufacturing corporation and a sales corporation, the sales corporation placed its order with the manufacturing corporation for ten thousand machines, deliveries to be at the rate of twenty machines a day, with a right in the sales corporation to terminate the agreement if the price thereof became “prohibitive,” and the sales corporation agreed to pay its agent fifty cents “on each machine purchased under this contract.” By a contract in writing between the sales corporation and its agent, the sales corporation agreed to pay its agent fifty cents on each machine “purchased” from the manufacturing corporation under the first agreement. No machines were delivered by the manufacturing corporation to the sales corporation and the contract between the two corporations was cancelled by mutual agreement without the agent’s knowledge. Held, that the sales corporation was not liable to the agent for fifty cents on each of the ten thousand machines “ordered” by it from the manufacturing corporation, none of them having been “purchased.”
Summary
Contract for $3,241.34 upon an account annexed for merchandise sold and delivered. Writ dated October 19, 1917. The defendant filed a declaration in set-off in four counts. By the second count, which alone now is material, he claimed $4,052.50, being $5,000, alleged to be due as commission under the contracts described in the opinion as “E” and “F,” less certain royalty credits. i The action was referred to an auditor, who found for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,933.07, and afterwards was tried before Fox, J., upon the auditor’s report as the only evidence. ;

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Braley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Braley, J.

The defendant, while not questioning the auditor’s findings that the plaintiff sold and delivered to him goods according to the account annexed, contends, that under the second count of his declaration in set-off he is entitled to recover by the terms of the Contracts of May 1, 1916, referred to in the record as exhibits “D,” “E,” and “F,” a sum in excess of the plaintiff’s entire claim. The auditor’s report, which was the only evidence at the trial, states that, prior to the date of any of the six contracts appearing in the record, the defendant had acted as the plaintiff’s sole and exclusive agent for the sale of the “Eden Electric Home Laundry Machine” within a designated but very restricted field. The defendant, however, during his agency “had conceived or improved an electrical device known and called an ‘Electric Vacuum Cleaner’ which had been manufactured for him by the Pneuvac Company, and for which he had created a market under the name of Red E and a public demand therefor. At some time the attention of the plaintiff was directed to this . . . cleaner and . . . negotiations began . . . looking toward a contract whereby the plaintiff was to purchase and the. defendant supply cleaners of this description.” The defendant, not being financially able to enter into a contract of the magnitude contemplated, “introduced the plaintiff ... to the Pneuvac Company for the purpose of establishing a relation between the *466 plaintiff” and the company whereby the company “was to manufacture for the plaintiff, cleaners of the same type as that therein-before conceived or improved by the defendant, he to benefit as thereafter agreed.” The contracts dated January 17, 1916, and designated in the record as A, B and C, were simultaneously executed, and the plaintiff thereunder received the full benefit of the defendant’s services as its “exclusive sales agent for the New England States, for all Eden and Brokaw-Eden products.” The Pneuvac Company undertook to pay the defendant upon receipt of payments from the plaintiff “for said machines, the difference between eleven . . . dollars and the price at which the machines are billed to and paid for by the said Brokaw-Eden Manufacturing Company.” The plaintiff having ordered “two thousand of said machines ... to be billed at $12 each,” the defendant’s commission, if the transaction was completed, would be one dollar on every cleaner. The payments however were made by the plaintiff although the money was derived from the Pneuvac Company. By contracts D, E and F, dated May 1, 1916, those agreements were cancelled, and thereafter the plaintiff obligated itself to make the payments, which were reduced to fifty cents, “on each electric vacuum cleaner purchased.” In order to determine the basis on which all parties to the new arrangement intended the computation should rest, these contracts, as the defendant contends, may be construed in so far as material as one instrument. Makepeace v. Harvard College, 10 Pick. 298 , 301. By contract E the plaintiff “places its order [with the Pneuvac Company] for ten thousand or more of said machines, and such of attachments as it may require, subject to all the terms and conditions of this agreement.” It appears that no cleaners satisfactory to the plaintiff ever were delivered by the Pneuvac Company, and, the contract between them having been mutually cancelled without the defendant’s knowledge, he is left to the contention that the order in question is the equivalent of an order for “ten thousand or more of said machines,” as if they had been on hand and ready for delivery, title to which passed to the plaintiff. Go ddard v. Binney, 115 Mass. 450 . White v. Solomon, 164 Mass. 516 . But it is plain that, until their manufacture and delivery, the cleaners had not been purchased within the meaning of the contract, and, no commissions having been payable to *467 the defendant, he cannot maintain his set-off, and the verdict for the plaintiff’ must stand. Barrie v. Quinby, 206 Mass. 259 ,, 267.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1927: 11929: 11930: 11934: 11946: 11980: 119272026peak 1927 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Clark v. State Street Trust Co.169 N.E. 897 (Mass. 1930)
  2. Pittsfield & North Adams Railroad v. Boston & Albany Railroad157 N.E. 611 (Mass. 1927)
  3. Hunt v. Bassett269 Mass. 298 (1929)
  4. Powers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue68 F.2d 634 (1st Cir. 1934)
  5. Beal v. Eastern Air Devices, Inc.403 N.E.2d 438 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
  6. Rosen v. Garston66 N.E.2d 29 (Mass. 1946)

Most recent

  1. Beal v. Eastern Air Devices, Inc.403 N.E.2d 438 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
  2. Rosen v. Garston66 N.E.2d 29 (Mass. 1946)
  3. Powers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue68 F.2d 634 (1st Cir. 1934)
  4. Clark v. State Street Trust Co.169 N.E. 897 (Mass. 1930)
  5. Hunt v. Bassett269 Mass. 298 (1929)
  6. Pittsfield & North Adams Railroad v. Boston & Albany Railroad157 N.E. 611 (Mass. 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Barrie v. Quinby, 206 Mass. 259 (1910) 64
Goddard v. Binney, 115 Mass. 450 (1874) 57
White v. Solomon, 30 L.R.A. 537 (Mass. 1895) 41

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list