Rogers v. Holden
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
CONTRACT, upon an account annexed, for goods sold and delivered. The case was referred to an auditor, who found for the plaintiffs. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., the auditor’s report was the only evidence offered by either party. The judge directed a verdict for the amount found by the auditor, and reported the case for the determination of this court. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.
1. The defendants contend that, upon the report of the auditor, the plaintiffs cannot recover in contract; and that there were two courses open to them, one tó ratify and adopt the contract of their agent, and the prices he had made, the other, to repudiate the contract and replevy the goods, or sue *197for their value in trover. The law is clear, that, if the plaintiffs’ property was sold by a person assuming to act for them, but without authority, and the plaintiffs waive the tort and ratify the contract, in an action against the purchaser they must ratify it as the agent made it. Brigham v.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bearce v. BowkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
3Cited by6 opinions
- M. McDonough Corp. v. ConnollyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Howard v. Barnstable County National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Gerrish Dredging Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Bascombe v. InferreraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Hutchins v. WebsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.