Hedden v. Roberts
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon an account annexed, for the price of a monument. The answer set up, among other things, that the contract was for a monument and two tablets to be made and erected in the defendant's cemetery lot; and that the plaintiff had not performed or offered to perform this contract. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Hnowlton, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
If it was material to the plaintiff’s case to show that he had sent a “bill of the monument to the defendant,” and that the defendant had received it, evidence that upon the envelope was printed a request for a return of the letter to the post-office address of the plaintiff, if not called for in ten days, and that the letter was not returned to him, was rightly admitted in connection with the evidence that the plaintiff sent the bill enclosed in this envelope by mail to the defendant. It was the duty of the officers of the postal service to return the letter to the address upon the envelope…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Huntley v. WhittierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by16 opinions
- Conahan v. FisherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Menage v. RosenthalMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Shute v. BillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Douglas v. City of LowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Rousseau v. Brotherhood of American YeomenMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.