Tucker v. Maxwell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The declaration in this case contained four counts: 1. Quantum valebant for a quantity of boards, with the fees for surveying and wharfage; 2. Indebitatus assumpsit for money laid out and expended : 3. Indebitatus assumpsit for the same boards, &c., in an account annexed to the writ.
Read the full summary
The declaration in this case contained four counts: 1. Quantum valebant for a quantity of boards, with the fees for surveying and wharfage; 2. Indebitatus assumpsit for money laid out and expended : 3. Indebitatus assumpsit for the same boards, &c., in an account annexed to the writ. The fourth count was upon the following order or bill, viz: — “ Saco, February 20, 1812. Cyrus King, Esq.: Sir, — On the return of the brig Cataract from a voyage to the islands or main, which I have now contemplated, and back to this port again, please to pay to Mr. Edward Tucker, or his order, one hundred and…
1Per curiam
Considering the direction of the judge to the jury by itself, we are not satisfied with it. Although it is not to be inferred, from the writing, that the plaintiff was to assume the risk of the voyage, yet the money was not to be paid upon this ordei until the return of the vessel. It was a mere authority to the *138drawee to pay the money upon the happening of that event. It is not drawn for value received. But when we look further into the case, we find the order was given in part payment for a quantity of boards sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, the remainder of the bill having been…
2Cited by9 opinions
- M'Crea v. PurmortCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Preble v. BaldwinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
- Ensign v. WebsterNew York Supreme Court · 1799
- Chapman v. DurantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Morse v. BellowsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1835
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.