Noble v. Fagnant
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon an account annexed, by J. S. Noble and Gr. H. Carter, copartners as Noble and Carter, for goods, consisting of cement and lime, sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
Contract, upon an account annexed, by J. S. Noble and Gr. H. Carter, copartners as Noble and Carter, for goods, consisting of cement and lime, sold and delivered. The answer set up the following defences: 1. A general denial. 2. That the plaintiffs acted as agents only in the sale of the cement, and such agency was disclosed prior to the sale. 3. An express warranty of the quality of the goods, and a breach of the warranty. 4. That the defendant had suffered damage by reason of the breach of warranty, and claimed to recoup for such damage. 5. A tender of two hundred dollars before suit…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
1. The statements of Bronson in regard to the proper mode of using the cement were rightly excluded. The plaintiff Noble and his clerk testified that Bronson had no connection with the plaintiffs, and the defendant also testified that the plaintiffs never referred him to Bronson, and that in his interviews with them they always represented Bronson to be the agent and representative of the manufacturers, J. B. King and Company, and not of themselves.
2. No error appears in the admission of the circular as a whole on the plaintiffs’ offer after a part of it had been put in by the defendant. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bouvé v. CottleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
3Cited by17 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SanchezMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1989
- National Machine & Tool Co. v. Standard Shoe Machinery Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Commonwealth v. DunneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Sayles v. QuinnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Sanderson v. Trump Manufacturing Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.