Gilbert v. Moline Plough Company,
119 U.S. 491 (1886)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Gilbert v. Moline Plough Company, 119 U.S. 491 (1886)

Gilbert v. Moline Plough Company

Argued December 3, 1886

Decided December 20, 1886

119 U.S. 491


A, Having received from B an order for hoods, declined to comply with it on the ground that he was not sufficiently advised of B's responsibility. B thereupon procured from C a writing stating that C was acquainted with B, endorsed him as an honest, capable business man deserving of credit, and would satisfy all his orders that spring. B delivered this to A. A thereupon notified B that the guarantee was accepted and forwarded the goods. B laving failed to pay his notes given for them, A sued on the letter of credit. C defended by setting up the original order given by B as part of and explanatory of the credit. The court below held that the letter of credit was complete and could not be changed by importing into it the previous order. This Court sustain that ruling.

Whether a letterpress copy can always be introduced in place of the original, quaere.

When the introduction of a letter in evidence is immaterial and works no prejudice to the objecting party, this Court will not reverse a judgment for that cause only.

This was an action at law on a contract of guarantee. Judgment for the plaintiff, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory.

The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.