LEACH & COMPANY, INC.
v.
PEIRSON

U.S. | 1927-11-21
No. 78
275 U.S. 120 Supreme Court of the United States (1927) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 72 L. Ed. 194 · 48 S. Ct. 57 · 1927 U.S. LEXIS 261 · SCDB 1927-011
Cited by 50 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Peirson sued Leach & Company to enforce an alleged agreement that the bond house would repurchase bonds at cost, claiming a salesman named Mather made this promise. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that a plaintiff cannot create evidence of his own claims through a self-serving letter sent to the opposing party, and that the defendant's failure to respond to such a letter cannot establish an admission or agency authority absent additional circumstances making a response requisite. The Court ruled that without independent evidence of Mather's authority to bind the company, Peirson was not entitled to rely on the undenied letter to prove the repurchase agreement.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mk. Justice Holmes

Mk. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit by Peirson against the petitioner upon an alleged agreement to repurchase, at any time and at the purchase price, bonds sold by the petitioner to the plaintiff. The petitioner is a bond house doing a large business, and the only evidence of its having made such a contract was the testimony of the plaintiff that Mather, a salesman, made the promise on the petitioner’s behalf, coupled with a letter the admissibility of which is the question here. The purchases were on June 19, 1920, September 23, 1920, and February 28, 1921. The plaintiff testified that on May 9, 1921, he wrote to the petitioner that when-he made the second purchase “ it was agreed by Mr. Mather that at any time I so desired you would take them off my hands at cost 98. I have need of some money and will avail myself of this' privilege. When shall I deliver them to you.” The officers of the petitioner denied ever having received the letter and denied the authority of Mather to make any such agreement. It may be mentioned further, although it is not relevant to the question here, that Mather denied having made the contracts alleged. The letter was offered in evidence, It was objected to as a self serving document but was admitted subject to exceptions^ There was no other evidence of Mather’s authority, but the jury were .instructed that, if the petitioner received the letter and failed to-disaffirm what Peirson said Mather had done, they would be justified in finding that the petitioner acquiesced in the agreement and that Mather had authority to do what Peirson said he did. The plaintiff got a verdict and judgment and the judgment was affirmed,by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 16 F. (2d) 86. On a suggestion of conflict between this and other Circuit Courts of Appeal and of failure to conform to the rule of-evidence in Pennsylvania, (a failure hi no way affected by the fact that the same-rule prevails in most Courts of high authority,) as also óf a difference among the' Courts as to the scope of the Conformity Acts, a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 273 U. S. 676. A man cannot make evidence for himself by' writing a letter containing the statements that he wishes to prove. He does not make the letter evidence by sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts. He no more can impose a duty to answer a charge than he .can impose a duty to pay by sending goods. Therefore, a failure to answer such adverse assertions in. the absence of further circumstances making an answer requisite or natural has no effect as an admission. Fraley v. Bispham, 10 Pa. 320. Kann v. Bennett, 223 Pa. 36, 47. Packer v. United States, 106 Fed. 906. Woolsey v. Haynes, 165 Fed. 391. Thrush v. Fullhart, 210 Fed. 1, 6. Harris v. Egger, 226 Fed. 389, 399. Kumin v. Fine, 229 Mass. 75. Viele v. McLean, 200 N. Y. 260. Richards v. Gellatly, L. R. 7, C. P. 127, 131. Wiedemann v. Walpole 2 Q. B. 534, 539. Thomas v. Jones, 2 K. B. 399; 1 K. B. 22.

There were no circumstances in this case to take it o,ut of the general rule. The letter might have been admissible as a demand if a binding contract had been proved, but until evidence of Mather’s authority was given the demand was immaterial. It is' true that, two days after that on which the plaintiff says that he wrote the letter that wé have quoted, the petitioner lent to the plaintiff' $15,000 on the security of the $20,000 bonds in question with the usual powers of sale and the plaintiff’s note. It would be the merest speculation to regard the plaintiff’s story, as confirmed by this loan. It may as probably have been an independent-transaction, and it might be argued •at least as plausibly that the plaintiff’s note and assent to the severe conditions of a pledge to brokers was inconsistent with the right that he now asserts. No evidence having been given of Mather’s authority to make the contract in suit the petitioner was entitled to "a verdict. The request that one should-be directed-should have been granted. A new trial must be awarded.

Judgment reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • Buchanan v. State, 575 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …g as it was written by the state’s witness. The rule of law is that an unanswered letter, not part of mutual correspondence, is self-serving and inadmissible in favor of the writer as evidence of facts contained therein. A.B. Leach & Co. v. Peirson, 275 U.S. 120, 48 S.Ct. 57, 72 L.Ed. 194 (1927). For these reasons, we find that the trial court erred in excluding the letter. Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. We will address some of the defendant’s re…
  • Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Kepler, 116 F.2d 1 (8th Cir. 1941)
    …buted the default to an act of the insurer, it would have been a self-serving declaration and incompetent. “A man cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing the statements that he wishes to prove.” Leach & Co., Inc., v. Peirson, 275 U.S. 120, 128, 48 S.Ct. 57, 72 L.Ed. 194, 55 A.L.R. 457; Lucas v. Hamilton Realty Corporation, 70 App.D.C. 277, 105 F. 2d 800, 805. An analysis of the insured’s correspondence with the General Agent clearly discloses that the insured’s complaint against the…
    1 / 2
  • Boerner v. United States, 117 F.2d 387 (2d Cir. 1941)
    …larger correspondence; and other examples are indicated in Benn v. Forrest, 1 Cir., 213 F. 763, Morris v. Norton, 6 Cir., 75 F. 912, 924, and United States v. Babcock, 24 Fed.Cas. pages 913, 924, No. 14,487, 3 Dillon 581. In Leach & Co. v. Peirson, 275 U.S. 120, 128, 48 S.Ct. 57, 58, 72 L.Ed. 194, 55 A.L.R. 457, where such evidence was excluded (in a ruling said by Wigmore, op. cit., to be erroneous “both on principle and on the particular facts”), it was pointed out that there were no circumstances “to ta…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw