Celluloid Co. v. Haines
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, to recover for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the William J. Dinsmore Company, of which the defendant was treasurer, upon the defendant’s alleged guaranty of payment therefor.
Read the full summary
Contract, to recover for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the William J. Dinsmore Company, of which the defendant was treasurer, upon the defendant’s alleged guaranty of payment therefor. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Hopkins, J., the defendant asked the following rulings : 1. The letter of May 1, 1896, alleged to have been written by the defendant to the plaintiff, is not a continuing guarantee. 2. The said letter is a guarantee only for goods sold by the plaintiff to the W. J. Dinsmore Company during the month of May, 1896. 3. The said letter of May 1,1896,…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The question is whether the guaranty contained in the defendant’s letter of May 1 was a continuing guaranty, or was a guaranty for the month of May; for we do not see how it can be fairly construed as a guaranty for the month of May or for the first month following May that goods were sold to Dinsmore and Company. If that had been what was intended, language more apt for the purpose naturally would have been used.
The letter of May 1 was written in reply to a letter from the plaintiff dated April 29, and we think that the letter of April 29 was properly admitted as the letter to which that of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lee v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Sullivan v. ArcandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Dover Stamping Co. v. NoyesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- L. Littlejohn & Co. v. HandyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923