Legal Opinion

Hight v. Ripley

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided April 15, 1841PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Exceptions from the District Court, W estern District. This was an action on the case for the recovery of damages for the non-performance of a contract made between the parties, for the delivery of a stipulated quantity of hoe shanks. To prove the contract, the plaintiff introduced the following memorandum, dated Oct. 31, 1838: — “ This day contracted with Messrs.

Read the full summary

Exceptions from the District Court, W estern District. This was an action on the case for the recovery of damages for the non-performance of a contract made between the parties, for the delivery of a stipulated quantity of hoe shanks. To prove the contract, the plaintiff introduced the following memorandum, dated Oct. 31, 1838: — “ This day contracted with Messrs. Ripley & Spaulding of Norwich, Conn., to furnish me as soon as practicable, from 1000 to 1200lbs. malleable hoe shanks, agreeable to patterns left with them on terms as follows:” There was a farther provision, that “ if they should…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Shepley J.

It may be considered as now settled, that the statute of frauds embraces executory as well as executed contracts for the sale of goods. But it does not prevent persons from contracting verbally for the manufacture and delivery of articles. The only difficulty now remaining is, to decide whether the contract be one for the sale, or for the manufacture and delivery of the article. It may provide for the application of labor to materials already existing partially or wholly in the form designed, and that the article improved by the labor shall…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Crookshank v. BurrellNew York Supreme Court · 1820

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Ludke Electric Co. v. Vicksburg Towing Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Phipps v. McFarlaneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
  3. Hallidie v. Sutter Street RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Hientz v. BurkhardOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Pitkin v. NoyesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1869

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API