Weeks v. Crie
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions by Defendants. Assumpsit to recover damages for non-delivery of a quantity of fish, which the plaintiff alleged he purchased of the defendants under an oral contract. The defendants denied the contract and invoked the statute of frauds.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions by Defendants. Assumpsit to recover damages for non-delivery of a quantity of fish, which the plaintiff alleged he purchased of the defendants under an oral contract. The defendants denied the contract and invoked the statute of frauds. The verdict was for plaintiff, and damages assessed at $128.70. At the trial, the plaintiff claimed, and introduced evidence tending to prove, that on the first day of November, 1898, the defendants orally agreed to sell him from three to five hundred drums of hake at $1.65 per kentle, to be delivered at Rockland when called for by him; and at…
1Opinion of the CourtSavage, J.
At the trial of this case, the plaintiff claimed and introduced evidence tending to show that the defendants, in November 1898, orally agreed to sell him from three to five hundred drums of hake at $1.65 per ken tie, to be delivered at Rockland when called for by him; and at the same interview agreed to sell him ten barrels of split herring at $4.25 per barrel, to be delivered in Rock-*461land by next boat from Criehaven, which would be witbin one week; that he, the plaintiff, orally agreed with the defendants to purchase the hake and the herring upon these terms. It was admitted by the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Torrey v. SheaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Ter Keurst v. First State BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Farmers Union Cooperative Elevator Federation v. CarterNebraska Supreme Court · 1950
- New Richmond Roller Mills Co. v. ArnquistWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
- Allen Hall v. RobertsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.