Legal Opinion

Edmond v. Caldwell

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided April 15, 1839PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Wm'f;?! C. J. presiding. Assumpsit for a gig and harness, with the money counts.

Read the full summary

Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Wm'f;?! C. J. presiding. Assumpsit for a gig and harness, with the money counts. The plaintiff called one William Smith, as a witness, and lie testified, that the gig and harness were the property of the plaintiff who entrusted them with him to sell, and that in July, 1836, b * fold the gig to the defendant, informing him, that it was Edmond’a properly; that Caldwell gave a note payable to Smith, not negotiab c, Smith informing him at the time, that it would immediately be f .¡msferred to Edmond, Caldwell refusing to purchase the gig, anil giK¡ a…

1Opinion of the Court

After a continuance for advisement, the opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Weston C. J.

It appears, that in July, 1836, William Smith, as the agent and factor of the plaintiff, sold to the defendant a gig, and in a few days afterwards a harness, the property of the plaintiff. When payment is not made at the time, a sale by a factor creates *343a contract between bis principal and the purchaser. Titcomb & al. v. Seaver, 4 Greenl. 542, and the cases there cited. And in Kelly v. Munson, 7 Mass. R. 319, Sewall J. says, “ this rule applies, whether the factor has or has not named his principal, at the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kelley v. MunsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brooks v. Greil Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  2. Page v. HubbardDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1857

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API