FRENGH SPIBAL SPRING 00. v. NEW ENGLAND can TRUST. 45
refused to sell zaid“ springs upon the sole security of said Blain Bros.,
but agreed to sell them unto the said firm, provided they would assign
to the petitioner a portion of the price to be paid by said car trust to
them upon the delivery of said cars, and provided the order making said
assignment should beaccepted in advaiice by the said car trust. There-
upon Blain Bros. delivered to the spring company the following order
upon the New England Railroad Company, the company which was, to
lease and purchase said cars from the car trust: — '
h HUNTINGDON, PA., June 30, 1883.
DEAR Sm: Please pay the French Spiral Spring Co., Limited, or order
September 5th inst., twenty-three hundred dollars (2,300) out of the proceeds `
of our settlement for coal cars to be furnished your company upon our pres-
ent contract, it being understood. we have sixty days’ time upon the purchase.
Very respectfully, . Braun Bn0s.
S. M. FELTON, Jr., ’ ’ A
General Manager N. Y. Ju N. E. R. R. Co.. Boston. “
~ The car trust returned tothe spring company thefollowing accept
ance: A ’ -    ,
‘ BosToN, July ,14, 1883. -
French Spiral Spring Company, Limited, Pittsburgh, Ra.-—GENTLEMEN:
In answer to your favor of the second- instant, inclosing order from Blain
Bros., the managers of the New England Car Trust accept the orderforcer-
titicates to the amount of-twenty-three hundred dollars, (2,300,) payable out
of certificates due Blain Bros. under the contract between Blain Bros. and
said car trust; the same not to be due until September 1st. * *" *‘ ~
V Yoursytruly, = WILLIAM CALEE LORING, Secretary.
t Blain Bros. delivered no cars to the car trust after August 24, 1883,
on which date they had delivered in all 370 cars. On August 29, 1883,
the car trust paid for the last lot of cars, 10 in number, Jwhich were de-
livered on said August 24th, by which payment it paid in full, accord-
ing to the terms of said contract, for all said 370 cars, and neith·er on
September lst nor on September 5th owed Blain Bros. anything. I _
The question in the case arises upon the terms of the acceptance. The
petitioner claims that it was a present acceptance for the sum of $2,300
due Blain Bros., but, if not, that it was a present acceptance for the
sum of $2,300, payable on September lst, the money to be payable in
certificates. The defendant says that it was an acceptance for $2,300,
payable only in certificateswhich were to become due to Blain_·_Bros.,
'underthe contract, on and after September 1st. On June 30th, they
date of Blain Bros.’ order, they were delivering cars under a con-tract
for the purchase of 500 cars, which contract called for an average deliv-
ery of 8 oars per working day, and which provided for the payment by
the car trust, as the cars were delivered in lots of 10, within one week
after the. receipt of the specified papers. Ninety¢nve cars had then been
delivered. More than one paymenttper week would, under the contract,
naturally be made. Blain Bros. were to have 60 days’ credit, and pay-
ment to the spring company was to beby theterms of the order, on »
September 5th. The car trust accepts the order " payable out of cer-