Cleveland-Akron Bag Co. v. Messick Grocery Co.

Per CuriaM. The chief exception upon which the defendant relies is that parol evidence was admitted by the court to prove the contents of the original order for the bags. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that in the course of business orders of that date were destroyed, and that search had been made for the missing order, and it could not be found. *765 Tbe evidence of loss was sufficient to justify tbe reception of parol evidence; but if not, tbe defendant was not prejudiced thereby, because it appears in tbe record tbat tbe defendant wrote tbe plaintiff on 23 October, 1911, acknowledging tbe receipt of tbe bags and'saying, among other things, “These were purchased by us,” which is a sufficient acknowledgment of tbe purchase by tbe defendant, tbe grocery company, and to charge tbat company with liability. It also appears in tbe record tbat complaint was made -as to tbe quality of tbe bags by tbe grocery company, and tbat tbe plaintiff immediately wrote to tbe defendant, asking tbat it return any bags tbat they contended were not of good quality and tbat it would give tbe defendant full credit for all bags returned. Tbe correspondence between tbe parties also shows tbat this offer on tbe part of tbe plaintiff was repeated several times, and tbat tbe defendant refused to return tbe bags. We have carefully considered tbe whole record, and do not find any error of which tbe defendant can complain. No error.