Hazard v. Loring
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Trover for a quantity of dry goods bought by the plaintiff of I. F. Woodman and company, January 31st, 1849. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Bishop, J. it appeared that in December, 1848, the goods had been transferred to the defendants, by George C. Varney and O. M. Soper, acting for said I. F. Woodman and company, and that a bill of parcels was at the time given by said Varney and Soper to the defendants in this form: “ Messrs.
Read the full summary
Trover for a quantity of dry goods bought by the plaintiff of I. F. Woodman and company, January 31st, 1849. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Bishop, J. it appeared that in December, 1848, the goods had been transferred to the defendants, by George C. Varney and O. M. Soper, acting for said I. F. Woodman and company, and that a bill of parcels was at the time given by said Varney and Soper to the defendants in this form: “ Messrs. Loring, Abbott and Porter; bought of G. C. Varney and O. M. Soper, (describing the goods,) Received Payment, G. C. Varney, O. M. Soper.” The…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, J.
The rule that parol evidence is not admissible to vary, explain, or control a written contract, is not applicable to mere bills of parcels, made in the usual form, in which nothing appears but the name of the vendor and vendee, the articles purchased, with the prices affixed, and a receipt of payment by the vendor. These form an exception to the general rule of evidence, being informal documents, intended only to specify prices, quantities, and a receipt of payment, and not used or designed to embody and set out the terms and conditions of a contract of bargain and sale. They are in the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bradford v. ManlyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Harris v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
- Barker v. ParkenhornUnited States Circuit Court · 1808