Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/807

 BOOKWALTBB V. CLARK. 795 �This letter was received by the plaintiffs at Springfield on January Sd, and an answer by letter returned by them on that day to defend- ants stating that they were not willing, under the circumstances, that defendants should purchase anything but the Leliel wheel, and that they were not disposed to give up a contract upon which they had already done considerable work; that they expected to complete and ahip their wheel at the time agreed in the contract. The wheel at this time was in course of manufacture, and about half done. This letter was received by the defendant? at Wausau on January 5th, and on that day they wrote themselves to the plaintiffs as f ollows : �" Watjsau, WiscoNsm, January 5, 1881. "James Leffel & Co., Spririfffleld, Ohio — Sirs: Yours of the 3d received. We ordered through Mr. Murray, your agent, a wheel, and a day or two after we told him to notify you to hold on with the order, as we were not positive we wanted it. You spld C. P. Hazeltine & Co. a wheel of that size and kind which he designs to take eut, and use steam instead, and we have been nego- tiating with tiiem for the wheel, pinions, eore-wheel, and shafting ; and, if he flnally concludes to put in steam, we sliall buy of him, and do not want your wheel; and, if he does not make the contemplated change, we want the wheel of you. If you want to deal that way, all right ; if not, you can consider the order countermanded now, and we will take our chances of getting a wheel that will suit as well as yours. The wheel Mr. Hazeltine has got is your make of wheel, and if he does not want to use it you had not ought to stop bis selling it by crowding. Will let you know within 10 days the resuit of trade with Hazeltine. �" Yours, respectf ully, Clark, Ireland & Co." �When this letter was received by the plaintiffs, on January 8tli, the wheel was nearly completed. �The plaintiffs' testimony shows that this wheel was unusually large, and they did not keep such in stock, and only made them to order; that 44-inoh wheek were as large as they kept in stock, and that it was only occasionally that they had an order for so large a one as this; that it oonsisted of some 20 large castings and a great many small pieces, and that it would ordinarily require considerable change to ut another customer if they found one wanting so large a one; that some of the wheels ran with and some against the saw, and that a wheel made to run with the saw could not be made to fit with machinery that was intended for the other kind. �The defendants had ample opportunity to inspect the machinery at Wausau, and there is no point made that it is not manufactured in all respects and shipped according to the contract. It is admitted ��� �