Farnsworth v. Chase
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The writ contained three counts. One, on an account annexed for dry goods, to the amount of $627,24. One for goods sold and delivered, and the third for money had and received. The defence was that the goods were purchased on a credit of six months, and that the suit was prematurely brought. It appeared that six months had not elapsed between the purchase of the goods and the date of the writ, and that the sale was not what was termed a cash sale.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The writ contained three counts. One, on an account annexed for dry goods, to the amount of $627,24. One for goods sold and delivered, and the third for money had and received. The defence was that the goods were purchased on a credit of six months, and that the suit was prematurely brought. It appeared that six months had not elapsed between the purchase of the goods and the date of the writ, and that the sale was not what was termed a cash sale. To sustain the defence, the defendant introduced witnesses whose testimony tended to show an express contract made for a credit of six…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, C. J.
Upon proof of the delivery of the goods, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover in this case, unless the evidence offered by the defendant be sufficient to take the case out of the ordinary principles of law.
■ He alleges that the usage among the dry goods jobbers is to give a credit of six months, where the goods are not paid for on delivery.
The first question is, what evidence is sufficient to prove the existence of such an usage 1 And what is the effect of the usage ?
A bill was drawn in the East Indies, payable to Campbell, or order, and by him indorsed to Ogilby, who indorsed it to the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Renner v. Bank of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Van Ness v. PacardSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Jones v. FalesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- FurnissCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1831
- Frith v. BarkerNew York Supreme Court · 1807
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.