Swift v. Pierce
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract brought to recover for certain goods delivered by the plaintiff to Joseph Hoar. At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., the evidence was conflicting as to the promise of the defendants to pay for the goods; and it appeared that they were entered in the plaintiff’s books in Hoar’s name, and were never charged to the defendants, and that the plaintiff commenced an action against Hoar for the value of the same, summoning the present defendants as…
Read the full summary
Contract brought to recover for certain goods delivered by the plaintiff to Joseph Hoar. At the trial in the superior court, before Brigham, J., the evidence was conflicting as to the promise of the defendants to pay for the goods; and it appeared that they were entered in the plaintiff’s books in Hoar’s name, and were never charged to the defendants, and that the plaintiff commenced an action against Hoar for the value of the same, summoning the present defendants as trustees. Hoar was defaulted in that action, and the trustees discharged; and thereupon the plaintiff discontinued the action.…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
The ruling of the court upon the second point on which instructions were asked was correct. The facts on which the defendants relied to show that credit was given to Hoar, though they were entitled to much consideration as evidence, were not conclusive. Entries by the plaintiff in his own books were not a contract, but memoranda, which were open to explanation. Even the bringing a suit against Hoar might be shown to have occurred by mistake. Gardiner v. Hopkins, 5 Wend. 23. Keate v. Temple, 1 B. & P. 158. Banfleld v. Whipple, 10 Allen, 27.
But on the other point we think the defendants have…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gardiner v. HopkinsNew York Supreme Court · 1830