Remick v. Sandford
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contbaot against Joseph H. Sandford, George Lovejoy and Robert P. Gould, copartners, doing business under the firm name of O. A. Bingham & Co., to recover the price of twenty-four bags of wool sold by the plaintiff to the defendants.
Read the full summary
Contbaot against Joseph H. Sandford, George Lovejoy and Robert P. Gould, copartners, doing business under the firm name of O. A. Bingham & Co., to recover the price of twenty-four bags of wool sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., who reported the case to this court in substance as follows : Henry R. Williams, a wool broker, testified for the plaintiff, that the sale and purchase of the wool sued for was made through him as a wool broker ; that he went to the plaintiff’s storehouse with the defendant Lovejoy to look at the wool; that one Hall,…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
At the trial the plaintiff relied upon a written paper usually called a “ sold note,” signed by the broker through whom the sale of the goods sued for was negotiated. If the broker was authorized by the defendants to sign this note, or if, after he signed it, the defendants accepted and adopted it as their contract, it would be binding on them, and it would not be compe*107tent for them to prove by paroi any terms of the sale which differ from those expressed in the written contract. Cabot v. Winsor, 1 Allen, 546. But it was for the jury to determine whether the broker had such authority, or…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Lowell Bar Ass'n v. LoebMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Pulse v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Matter of HuxleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
- Brown v. HenryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Remick v. SandfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.