Daylight Burner Co. v. Odlin
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, by the Daylight Burner Company against James W. Od-lin, an expressman, for delivering goods marked “ C. O. D.” without receiving the price. The plaintiff is a corporation, doing business in the city of'New York. The defendant is an expressman, between Boston and Exeter.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, by the Daylight Burner Company against James W. Od-lin, an expressman, for delivering goods marked “ C. O. D.” without receiving the price. The plaintiff is a corporation, doing business in the city of'New York. The defendant is an expressman, between Boston and Exeter. The plaintiff sent from New York, by Adams’s express, a package of goods directed to .one Berry, Exeter, N. H., and a bill of the same, for $55.80, from the plaintiff to Berry, marked “ C. O. D.,” which, by the usage of express business, means “ cash on delivery,” and imports an order that the goods are not to be…
1Opinion of the CourtBellows, C. J.
From the uncontradicted testimony of the plaintiff and the finding of the jury, it may be assumed that Moore was clothed by the plaintiff with an apparent authority, like that of a factor, to sell all the goods of the plaintiff he could sell within his bu'siness circuit, on a commission of ten per cent.. As incident to that general authority, he had power to fix the terms of sale, including the time, place, and mode of delivery, and the price of the goods, and the time and mode of payment, and to receive payment of the price, subject of course to be controlled by proof of the mercantile usage…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Goodenow v. TylerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Robertson v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Leland v. DouglassNew York Supreme Court · 1828