Howe v. Hardy
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for a balance of the price of window frames made by the plaintiffs and sold and delivered by them to the defendant, who filed a declaration in set-off for money paid to the use of the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Contract for a balance of the price of window frames made by the plaintiffs and sold and delivered by them to the defendant, who filed a declaration in set-off for money paid to the use of the plaintiffs. At the trial in the superior court, before Wilkinson, J., without a jury, it appeared that the plaintiffs were manufacturers of window frames in Lowell, and the defendant a dealer in them in Boston, and a question was raised whether the plaintiffs or the defendant should pay the freight on the frames. The plaintiffs having testified that it was not their usage to pay freight, the defendant,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The usage as to the payment of freight was competent, for it related to what the vendor was to do in respect to the delivery of the goods in the absence of an express stipulation, Putnam v. Tillotson, 13 Met. 517.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Smith Co. v. MoscahladesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Florence Machine Co. v. DaggettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Waddell v. WallaceSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Mathias Planing Mill Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.Ohio Circuit Courts · 1900
- Mathias Planing Mill Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.Ohio Circuit Courts · 1900