Winchester v. Howard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for the price of a pair of oxen alleged to have been purchased by the defendant of the plaintiffs. The defence set up was a denial of such purchase.
Read the full summary
Contract for the price of a pair of oxen alleged to have been purchased by the defendant of the plaintiffs. The defence set up was a denial of such purchase. At the trial in the superior court, before Motion, J., the plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to prove that through one Lorenzo Smith, their agent, they sold the cattle to the defendant ; whereupon the defendant offered to prove certain facts which, he contended, established his defence; but the judge ruled that, if proved, they would constitute no defence to the action, and directed a verdict for the plaintiffs. In the defendant’s…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, J.
The court are of opinion that it should have been left to the jury in this case to determine whether the minds of the parties really met upon any contract; and if so, what the contract was.
It is true that an agent may sell the property of his principal without disclosing the fact that he acts as an agent, or that the property is not his own; and the principal may maintain an action in his own name to recover the price. If the purchaser says nothing on the subject, he is liable to the unknown principal. Huntington v. Knox, 7 Cush. 371. But on the other hand, every man has a right to elect what…
2Cited by57 opinions
- Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Boston Ice Co. v. PotterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Florance v. KresgeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
- Kaufmann v. SydemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Cowan v. CurranIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.