« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
ing which he should keep the library open, i decision that the construction was erroneous, and appropriating $400 annually for the pur- | the argument ab inconvenienti is sometimes al
| lowed to have very great weight." Cooley, chase of books and $150 annually for his sal
Const. Lim. (7th Ed.) p. 102. ary. The president of the Senate, the Speak
|  All the considerations suggested by the er of the House, and many members of both
learned jurist exist here. We sum up the houses had been members of the constitution
situation: (1) The construction to be placed al convention. From that time to the pres
upon the clause in question is not clear; (2) ent it is safe to say that there has not been
the construction above indicated has been a session of the Legislature where similar
followed and acquiesced in by the Legislature acts have not been passed. Some of them
and the people from the adoption of the Conare: The Food and Dairy Commission Act;
stitution until the present time; (3) that the Immigration Commission Act, passed in
construction was adopted by legislators who 1885; the Fish Commission Act, in 1887; the
had participated in the framing of the ConState Board of Horticulture Act, in 1895; the
stitution and who may fairly be presumed to Bureau of Labor Statistics Act, in 1903; the have known the intent with which it
have known the intent with which it was act creating the office of state engineer, and
adopted; (4) to now hold that the acts so providing a water code, in 1905; the Bank
code, 1. 1310; the Bank passed are void would be attended with such Examiner Act, the Railroad Commission Act, disorganization of public business and deand the Sheep Inspector Act, in 1907; the act
struction of private and pecuniary rights creating the office of insurance commissioner which have grown up with faith in the validand a fund known as the "insurance fund,"ity of the acts which would be affected by a and the act creating our present water board, decision favorable to the contention of plainin 1909; the act creating the state forestry tiff as would create widespread confusion board, and the act providing for the construc- and disaster. Our Irrigation Code, Minimum tion of a branch insane asylum in Eastern Wage Act, Public Utilities Act, and much of Oregon, in 1911; the act providing for a state the legislation heretofore alluded to would industrial school for girls; an act creating be thrown into hopeless disarray. Under the an Industrial Welfare Commission; an act act now being considered widows, orphans, creating the state highway commission; and and helpless cripples who have taken advanan act creating the state live stock sanitary tage of its provisions would be deprived, in board, in 1913. Most of these acts fixed the many instances, of their means of subsistsalary or compensation of the officers desig- ence, and be thrown upon the cold charities nated to carry out their purposes and appro- of the world. These consequences are too priated the money necessary to pay such sal- momentous to be invoked by a new construcaries and to accomplish the general objects tion of a doubtful provision of the Constitu; for which the law was enacted. An exam- tion. The rule is well settled that a statute ination of the late session laws of other will not be held unconstitutional where a states having identical or similar provisions reasonable doubt exists as to its invalidity. in their Constitutions shows that the same Cline v. Greenwood, 10 Or. 230; Simon v. legislative practice has been pursued in Northup, 27 Or. 487, 40 Pac. 560, 30 L. R. A. these jurisdictions, so that it may be said 171; State v. Cochran, 55 Or. 157, 180, 104 practically the uniform contemporaneous con- Pac. 419, 105 Pac. 884; Libby v. Olcott, 66 struction of this section of the Constitution Or. 124, 134 Pac. 13; In re Willow Creek, is that it does not prohibit the Legislature supra. from passing an act designed to effect a par-  It is further urged that the act is unticular purpose and in the same act to pro- constitutional because the original bill was vide the funds necessary to accomplish that amended in many particulars during its progpurpose. While such a construction will not ress through the Legislature, and the whole be permitted to overturn and render nuga- bill as amended was not read by sections on tory a clear provision of the Constitution, in three several days, as required by section 19, cases where the meaning of a clause in the art. 4, of the Constitution. Such has never instrument is capable of two interpretations, been the practice in this state, and what little it is entitled to great weight. It was remark- authority can be found on the subject is coned by Judge Cooley:
trary to plaintiff's contention. People ex rel. "But where there has been a practical con- v. Wallace, 70 Ill. 680. In that case the court struction, which has been acquiesced in for a says: considerable period, considerations in favor of “It is also obiected that the tenth section of adhering to this construction sometimes present
the act was not constitutionally adopted, because themselves to the courts with a plausibility and
it was engrafted as an amendment whilst the force which it is not easy to resist. Indeed,
bill was being considered, and was not read on where a particular construction has been gener
three several days in the house adopting it as ally accepted as correct, and especially when
an amendment. We are clearly of opinion that this has occurred contemporancously with the
the requirement does not apply to an amendadoption of the Constitution, and by those who
| ment, and the objection cannot prevail." had opportunity to understand the intention of the instrument, it is not to be denied that al
| Other objections are urged, but they are strong presumption exists that the construction simply variations of those already considerrightly interprets the intention. And where led. Upon the whole case we are of the opinthis has been given by officers in the discharge
ion that the act violates no prescription of of their official duty, and rights have accrued in reliance upon it, which would be divested by a the Constitution of this state or of the Unit
ed States, and that it was properly passed and is in every respect a valid law. While
REED et al. v. MILLS. ience may suggest from time to time (Supreme Court of Oregon. Jan. 11, 1916.) changes and amendments, they are in line 1. REPLEVIN ml_"CLAIM AND DELIVERY" with twentieth century progress. Before its -NATURE OF ACTION. enactment one workman out of three receive
An action for the recovery of possession of ed a large compensation for his injuries by
| personal property provided for by L. O. L. 8
283 et seq., is strictly possessory, and its gist an action at law, while the remaining two is the defendant's wrongful detention of the dewere defeated and got nothing. Now every manded property and plaintiff's right to immeworkman accepting its provisions receives diate possession thereof at the time the action
was commenced. some compensation if injured; and, taken
| [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Replevin, as a whole, it will be found that more money | Cent. Dig. 81: Dec. Dig. 1. in the way of compensation is received by For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, the whole body of injured workmen than by First and Second Series, Claim and Delivery.) the inadequate remedies afforded in the 2, REPLEVIN 10—BOND-FRAUDULENT Ascourts. It has been a boon to the employers, SIGNMENT - CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION the employed, and the community, which lat-|
Where, in an action to recover possession ter could formerly only offer to the injured of a bond under L. O. L. & 283 et seg.. regulatlaborer the charity of the almshouse instead ing actions of claim and delivery, plaintiff's of that just compensation which he may now reply showed that the bond had been delivered receive without the humiliation of pauperism
by defendant to a third person without consider
“ ation, who held it in trust for defendant subor the loss of self-respect.
ject to his control, and with knowledge of his The decree of the circuit court is affirmed. intent to defraud plaintiff, defendant's motion
for nonsuit made at the close of plaintiff's eviEAKIN, J., took no part in the considera dence, which evidence did not allude to the pretion of this case.
tended assignment and delivery of the bond, was
properly overruled, since an action to recover BURNETT. J. (concurring specially). I possession of personal property lies where de
fendant has constructive possession as well as cannot agree that continued violations shall in cases of actual possession. be dignified into contemporaneous construc (Ed. Note. For other cases, see Replevin, tion of so plain a mandate as section 7, art. Cent. Dig. 88 69-82; Dec. Dig. Om 10.] 9, of the state Constitution that:
3. REPLEVIN C&CLAIM AND DELIVERY"Laws making appropriations for the salaries SET-OFF-ISSUE of public officers and other current expenses of 1. In an action to recover possession of perthe state shall contain provisions on no other sonal property, plaintiff, if entitled thereto, may subject."
recover possession regardless of any indebtedI concur in the result of the opinion of Mr.
ness owing by him to defendant, since the right
to possession is the only issue that can be deJustice McBRIDE, however, for the reason
termined in such action, leaving defendant to that, with the whole question before them on pursue his proper remedy as a creditor. the referendum of the act in question, the [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Replevin, people approved it at the election of Novem- | Cent. Dig. 88 45-68; Dec. Dig. Om 8.] ber, 1913, by a vote of 67,814 to 28,608. 4. REPLEVIN 12-CLAIM AND DELIVEBY
For the same reason, defendant was not
entitled to have such debts due him deducted UPTON V. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCI. from a money judgment in plaintiff's favor in DENT COMMISSION OF
such action, where possession of the property OREGON.
could not be delivered.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Replevin, (Supreme Court of Oregon. Jan. 11, 1916.)
Cent. Dig. 88 98-110; Dec. Dig. 12.) In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion
arion 5. APPEAL AND ERROR Om 238REVIEW-ERCounty; William Galloway, Judge..
ROR IN JUDGMENT - MOTION IN LOWER Action by Mark R. Upton against the State Industrial Accident Commission of Oregon.
Where it appeared in such action that the From an adverse order, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
bond demanded had been sold, and a new one isThe complaint in this case is similar in all sued in lieu, and, the canceled bond having been respects to that in the case of Evanhoff v. State
received in evidence, its number and series were Industrial Accident Commission, 154 Pac. 106,
entered in the judgment for plaintiff, and defendrecently decided by this court and not yet of
ant did not move the court below to correct the ficially reported. A demurrer to the complaint
| particularity of the judgment in this respect, baving been sustained, plaintiff appeals.
any error committed therein is unavailing on
appeal, though a motion to set aside the verdict Isham N. Smith, of Portland, for appellant.
and judgment and to grant a new trial was Geo. M. Brown, Atty. Gen., and J. 0. Bailey,
interposed, since the proper way to correct Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
an error in a judgment in replevin is by motion MCBRIDE, J. The reasoning of the opinion |
| therefor in the court below.' in Evanhoff v. State Industrial Accident Com
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and mission, 154 Pac. 106, applies to this case in
Error, Cent. Dig. 88 1343, 1345, 1357, 1958, 1360, '1364, 1366, 1382, 1386-1410; Dec. Dig.
1956 eFery particular,' and upon the authority of that case the judgment of the circuit court is
Cm 238.] affirmed.
Department 1. Appeal from Circuit Court, EAKIN, J., took no part in the consideration
aration Wasco County; W. L. Bradshaw, Judge. of this case.
| Action by W. P. Reed and J. M. Reed
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
against W. D. Mills. Judgment for plain- ! fused to comply, and delivered it to C. L. tiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. Gavin, who paid no consideration therefor, This action was commenced June 11, 1914, |
nmenced June 11. 1914. and held it in trust for the defendant and to recover the possession of a bond for $1,
subject to the latter's control, and with 000 issued by the Realty Associates of Port- knowledge of his intent to hinder, delay, and land, Or., and alleged to be unlawfully held defraud the plaintiffs. by the defendant in Wasco county, Or. The
Predicated on these issues, a trial was had complaint is in the usual form. All of its
resulting in a judgment for the return of material averments are denied in the answer,
bond No. 232, series No. 1, of the Realty Asexcept that of the demand and the refusal
sociates of Portland, Or., but, if return there to deliver the bond. For a further defense of could not be had, then for the recovery it is alleged, in effect, that between February of $850, the value thereof, and the defendant 1, 1914, and May 1st of that year the plain- / appeals. tiffs were the owners of real property in John Gavin, of The Dalles (R. R. Butler, Oregon, and at their solicitation the defend- of The Dalles, on the brief), for appellant. ant, as a real estate broker, negotiated the M. R. Klepper, of Portland (W. H. Wilson, of sale of a part of their lands, whereby it be- The Dalles, on the brief), for respondents. came necessary for him to advance on their account $62.50 interest due on a mortgage upon the premises so sold, which sum they
MOORE, C. J. (after stating the facts as promised to repay; that, in connection with above). [1, 2] The plaintiffs having introducthat sale. the defendant, at the plaintiffs'ed their evidence in chief and rested, the derequest, procured for them a loan of $2,000,
fendant's counsel moved for a judgment of for which they promised to pay him $40; nonsuit on the ground of a failure to estabthat between the dates last mentioned the lish a cause sufficient to be submitted to the defendant, at the plaintiffs' solicitation, jury. This motion was denied, and it is connegotiated the sale of other lands for them
tended that an error was thereby committed. to L. W. Curtiss for $12,000, for which sery- It is argued by defendant's counsel that the ice they promised to pay him $600; that, in pleadings conclusively show the defendant order to discharge these obligations, the had sold and delivered the bond to C. L. plaintiffs delivered to the defendant the de
Gavin April 28, 1914, or 44 days before this manded bond, requesting him to sell it for
action was commenced, and, since their not less than 80 per cent. of its face value,
client did not have possession of the depromising to pay him, if sale were made,
manded property at that time, this cause $100; that, pursuant to the latter agreement,
should have been dismissed. It is maintainthe defendant, on April 28, 1914, sold and
ed by plaintiffs' counsel, however, that, delivered the bond to O. L. Gavin for 85 per
though the reply admits the defendant had cent. thereof; and that, after deducting from
delivered the bond to C. L. Gavin, the transthe proceeds of such sale the sums of money
fer was a pretense only, and that the defendso due the defendant, there remained $47.50,
ant was at all times after it was so deliverwhich, prior to the commencement of this
ed in the constructive possession thereof. action, he tendered to the plaintiffs, and
The recovery of the possession of personal upon their refusal to accept such money left property, which, under section 283, L. O. L., it with the clerk of the court for them.
is denominated an action of claim and delivThe reply denies the material averments of
ery, is substantially the ancient remedy of new matter in the answer, and for a further
replevin, and is governed by the same rules defense alleges, in substance, that the defend
which controlled the means originally emant voluntarily paid $62.50, when only $43.50
ployed to enforce that right. The action is was due, which latter sum the plaintiffs
strictly possessory, and its gist is the defendtender in full payment of the demand; that
ant's wrongful detention of the demanded the defendant, acting for himself and L.
property and the plaintiffs' right to the imW. Curtiss, negotiated an exchange of a part
mediate possession thereof at the time the
action is commenced. of the plaintiffs' land, for which they receiv
"Replevin,” says an author, “will not lie ed a transfer of all the capital stock of The
against one who at the time the action was instiDalles and Rockland Ferry at $3,000, a part tuted was neither in the actual nor construcof which stock was owned by the defendant; tive possession or control of the property, unthat, as further consideration, the plaintiffs
tiffs less he has concealed, removed, or disposed of
the same for the purpose of avoiding the writ." received a conveyance of about four acres of Cobbey, Replevin (2d Ed.) 8 64. land at The Dalles, Or., estimated to be worth $3,000, and also bonds of the Realty
1 In De Lore v. Smith, 67 Or. 304, 309, 136 Associates of Portland, Or.. of the face value Pac. 13, 14 (49 L. R. A. [N. S.] 555), Mr. Jusof $6,000; that one of these bonds for $1,
tice McNary, discussing this subject, ob000 was never delivered to the plaintiffs,
rves: who consented that it might be sold by the. "As an abstract proposition of law, this court defendant, but on April 2, 1914, no sale there.
has become wedded to the rule that, in order to
maintain replevin, defendant should have either of having been made, they requested him to the actual or constructive possession of the propcommencement of the action, so that defendant, | The court permitted the defendant freely if judgment be rendered against him, might to offer testimony tending to prove the plainmake delivery thereof to plaintiff.”
tiffs were indebted to him as alleged in the In the case at bar, if the assignment and answer. This was done to substantiate the delivery of the bond were made by the de- defendant's theory by showing a considerafendant before the action was commenced, tion for delivering the bond to him in payostensibly to remove it from his possession, ment of the plaintiffs' obligations. The plainthough, in fact, he retained control there- tiffs' hypothesis was that the bond had been of, the action was properly maintainable so delivered in order that a sale thereof against him. This was the theory on which might be made and the proceeds arising the cause was tried. When the motion for a therefrom returned to them. If the latter judgment of nonsuit was interposed, the only theory was correct, the defendant had no testimony that had been offered was that right to appropriate the bond merely because given by the plaintiff W. P. Reed. The fact the plaintiffs might have been indebted to that he did not allude to what his counsel as-him. In an action of claim and delivery the sert was a pretended assignment and deliv- only issue that can be determined is the ery of the bond would not have authorized plaintiff's right to the immediate possession a summary dismissal of the action. In An- of the demanded personal property. The drews v. Hoeslich, 47 Wash. 220, 222, 91 Pac. | fact that a sum of money is due and owing 772 (18 L, R, A. (N. S.) 1265, 125 Am. St. Rep. I does not authorize a creditor without pur896, 14 Ann. Cas. 1118) it is said:
suing the remedy prescribed by law, to take "Where, as in this case, property has actually
hly possession of the debtor's personal property been in appellant's possession, and has been wrongfully transferred by him without respond- and apply it, or the proceeds arising thereent's knowledge before the commencement of an from, to the payment of his claim. No eraction for the recovery of its possession, the rule
ror was committed in giving the instruction that replevin will not lie against one not in possession at the time of the commencement of
first hereinbefore quoted. the action will not obtain.”
It will be remembered that the reply adTo the same effect. see Nichols v. Michael. I mitted $43.50 was due the defendant on ac23 N. Y. 264, 80 Am. Dec. 259, 262. No er count of interest which, it was averred, he ror was committed in denying the motion.
otion had voluntarily paid, and also alleged that
bad 13. 41 An exception having been taken to a the plaintiffs tendered that sum in full paypart of the court's charge, it is insisted by ment thereof. The plaintiffs' final pleading defendant's counsel that an error was com
did not allege that this amount of money had mitted in instructing the jury as follows:
been offered to the defendant, or that upon "If you should find from the evidence that the his refusal to accept it that sum had been plaintiffs are entitled to the bond, and should left with the clerk of the court for him. The return a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, your
ans, your laverment referred to is nothing more than verdict would not prevent the defendant from recovering off the plaintiffs any amount that a mere proposal to allow the defendant to the plaintiffs may be owing to the defendant; take a judgment for the sum of $43.50. Such in other words, you are not establishing the offer in an action of this kind is not good question as to whether plaintiffs owe the defendant or not. The question you are to try and
pleading, and might upon motion have been determine is whether the plaintiffs delivered the stricken from the reply. The tender was bond to the defendant for the purpose of pay- I probably set forth in the reply to show to ing the items which the defendant says the the jury a willingness on the plaintiffs' part plaintiffs owe him. If the bond was not deliyered to the defendant for such purpose, then the
he to deal justly with the defendant.
deus JuLIS plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the same, To sanction the giving of the requested ineven if they owe the defendant each and all of struction would permit a creditor, without the items which the defendant claims the plain. tiffs owe him.”
pursuing the provisional remedy of attach
ment, to take possession of a debtor's perAn exception having been taken by defend
sonal property unlawfully, and, if it could ant's counsel to the court's refusal to give a
| be sold before an action of repleyin were inrequested instruction, it is maintained that
stituted, the creditor might from the proan error was committed in declining to direct
ceeds pay his own demand and turn over to as follows:
the debtor the surplus of the money, if any "I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you should find for the plaintiffs in this case,
remained. While a creditor has an adequate and find that the bond cannot be delivered, and remedy for the recovery of debts due him, should find that the plaintiffs have been dam- the law will not countenance the scheme of aged, you are to deduct from any amount which obtaining payment of his demands as outyou may find due the plaintiffs from the defendant as damages the amounts which are due to lined in the requested instruction, in refusthe defendant, if any, for real estate commis- ing to give which no error was committed. sions, negotiation of loan, commission on sale of 151 The complaint did not particularly debond, and for money advanced, and it is admitted and conceded in this case that the sum of SCT
scribe the bond undertaken to be recovered, $43.50 is due from the plaintiffs to the defend probably because it had never been in the ant, but whether or not the plaintiffs are enti- plaintiffs' possession, but at their request had tled to recover in this case is a matter for you
been delivered to the defendant. It appeared to determine, and the burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove their case, and, if they fail to do at the trial that, though the bond had been
the canceled bond was received in evidence H, E. Slattery, of Eugene, for appellant. disclosing the number and series as herein- Jesse Stearns, of Portland (F. E. Smith, of before set forth.
Eugene, on the brief), for respondents. "The proper way to correct an error in entering a judgment in replevin,” says a text-writer, BURNETT, J. [1, 2] According to the bill “is by motion in the court in which it was rendered, not by appeal." Cobbey, Replevin (20
of exceptions the plaintiff Lueddemann tesEd.) § 1092.
tified that on March 16, 1914, he received To the same effect is the case of Inger
through the United States mail a letter from soll v. Bostwick, 22 N. Y. 425.
the defendant, "Exhibit A” which is here set It is difficult to understand how the de
out: fendant can be prejudiced by the judgment
"Yamhill, Oregon, Mar. 16—14.
"Lueddemann Ruley Company. in the respect mentioned, since he cannot re
“Sir I seen your Ade in the Sunday Orgonian turn the bond demanded. But, however this
that you had land to trade for a wheat ranch may be, the particularity of the judgment that I would trade for a good dairy ranch, My does not appear to have been called to the farm is 5 miles north of Kahlotus, Franklin attention of the trial court, so as to afford it
Co. Wash. consists of 1440 achers, 1300 in culti
vation, 650 in fall wheat and 650 to bee summer an opportunity to correct the final deter
followed free to buyer. Place rented to Nov. mination, though a motion to set aside the 1st, this fall. My price is $27.00 acher; there is verdict and judgment and to grant a new a mortgage of $9025, against it, $1725 due this
fall; $1300 next fall; $6000 in 1916. Buildings trial was interposed. The defendant's coun
only fair; small house, barn room for 25 head sel not having specified the number and series
of horses, well and windmill. SW 14 of sec. of the bond as given in the judgment now 12; all sec. 13; all of sec. 14 Town. 14 R. 34. complained of, any error committed in such
I will give $1000 Com. on a trade or I will
give you $1500 on cash sale. In case of cash final determination of the cause is unavail
sale I will cut my price a little. Will give long ing on appeal.
time with fair cash payment down. Hope to It follows that the judgment should be af- hear from you soon. firmed, and it is so ordered.
Wm. Rudolf." "Your truly,
The same witness testified that in answer BENSON, BURNETT, and McBRIDE, JJ., to the foregoing letter he wrote, signed, and concur.
mailed to the defendant at his postoffice, Yamhill, Or., the following communication:
"Portland, Oregon, March 21, 1914.
"Mr. William Rudolf, R. 1, Yamhill, Oregon LUEDDEMANN et al. v. RUDOLF.
--Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of March (Supreme Court of Oregon. Jan. 11, 1916.) | 16th, the owner of the three places we adver
tised could not consider your property, as it 1. BROKERS m7-ACCEPTANCE-NECESSITY. amounts to more than he would care to under
Where a firm of real estate brokers, reply- take. He would assume up to say $4,000 or ing to a response to their advertisement in which $5,000, but your property amounts to over $38,the owner of land offered to sell or exchange the 000, and he would have to assume over $20,000, same for a price named at a fixed commission, so it is out of the question. We are glad, howstated that the owner of the places they ad ever, to know about your property, as we believe vertised could not consider the property of the that we can get you a trade. Please let me person who answered the advertisement and know whether all of this years crop goes with then made a counter offer, no contract of em- the place, or is it rented, and if rented, when ployment of the brokers by the party resulted. can you give possession? Are they to plow the
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Summer fallow even if you trade the place off ? Dig. 88 5-8; Dec. Dig. Om7.]
How far are you from the nearest station? Is
there any running water on your place, or any 2.. BROKERS C 43 - EMPLOYMENT – WRITTEN
alfalfa land? Is there any stock and impleCONTRACT.
ments included? Would you cut the place in By direct provision of L. O. L, $ 808, an two, that is, would you trade part of it? How agreement authorizing or employing an agent high would you go. if you could get a good or broker to sell or purchase real estate for
stocked and equipped dairy farm? Please let compensation or commission must be in writing. I me know about these matters, and I will try to
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. I put up a good proposition to you as we have a Dig. 44; Dec. Dig. 43.)
number of things to offer for a good wheat farm,
"Yours truly, Department No. 1. Appeal from Circuit
"Lueddemann, Ruley & Co., Court, Lane County; G. F. Skipworth, Judge.
“By Max Lueddemann." Action by Max Lueddemann, Ernest L. The plaintiffs stated to the court that these Lueddemann, and J. B. Ruley, as copartners two letters constituted the contract of emunder the firm name of Lueddemann, Ruley & ployment, and that they relied upon them as Co., against William Rudolf to recover $1,000 constituting the agreement between the paras broker's commissions claimed to have been ties whereby the defendant employed the earned by the plaintiffs in effecting a sale of plaintiffs to effect a trade of his land. In orthe land of the defendant. The complaint der to establish a contract upon offer and acwas denied, and other issues raised, which ceptance the acceptance must be in the preare not deemed material for the considera cise terms of the offer. In other words, the tion of the case. From a verdict and judg. acceptance must precisely meet the terms of ment in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant the offer, or there is no meeting of minds so appeals. Reversed.
essential to the validity of a contract. The