Barrett v. McHugh
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for goods sold and delivered. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. The statute of frauds. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Hoelewell, J., it was admitted that the goods were sold and delivered to Mrs. Dewire, under the circumstances hereinafter stated; and that the plaintiffs’ books showed that the goods were charged to her, and that what payments had been made were made by her.
Read the full summary
Contract for goods sold and delivered. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. The statute of frauds. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Hoelewell, J., it was admitted that the goods were sold and delivered to Mrs. Dewire, under the circumstances hereinafter stated; and that the plaintiffs’ books showed that the goods were charged to her, and that what payments had been made were made by her. Nicholas T. Geagan, one of the plaintiffs, testified as follows: “ The defendant came and said he had a person whom he wanted to get a store for. I said we could not trust strangers. The defendant then…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
This case is governed by Ileywood v. Stiles, 124 Mass. 275. There was evidence, proper to be considered by the presiding justice who tried the case without a jury, tending to show that the goods for which this suit is brought were sold upon the sole credit of the defendant, and that he was liable as an original promisor, and not as a guarantor. Upon this question, the finding of the justice is conclusive, and we cannot revise it.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Heywood v. StilesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hammond Coal Co. v. LewisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Irving Tanning Co. v. ShirMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Larson v. JensenMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Mackey v. SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Kesler and Dodson v. CheadleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.