Roosevelt v. Doherty
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover the price of plate glass sold and delivered to the defendant. Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who directed a verdict for the defendant, and reported the case for the determination of this court. If the plaintiff could maintain the action, a new trial was to be ordered; otherwise, judgment on the verdict. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtEndicott, J.
It appears from, the report that the firm of Hills, Turner & Harmon were importers of and dealers in window and plate glass, and they made a contract in writing with the defendant to furnish the glass for a building, which he was about to erect in Boston, according to the specifications fur nished by the architect, for the gross sum of |688 in cash. The contract describes the quality and dimensions of the glass to be furnished, and the number of lights of each quality. Hills, Turner & Harmon were the selling agents for the plaintiff, in Boston, for plate glass, and the first four items of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Locke v. LewisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Goodenow v. TylerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Hamilton v. CunninghamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Virginia · 1828
3Cited by11 opinions
- Brunswick Leasing Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation v. Wisconsin Central, Limited, an Illinois Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
- Fullam v. Wright & Colton Wire Cloth Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Cushman v. SnowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Howell v. First of Boston International Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Darling-Singer Lumber Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.