Hapgood v. Batcheller
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit on a promissory note for $544-46, signed by the defendants, dated November 14th 1839, payable to Bryant & Hapgood or order, on demand with interest, and by them mdorsed to Hutchins Hapgood, the plaintiffs’ testator At the trial in the court of common pleas, evidence was introduced tending to prove the following facts : In the year 1838, said Bryant & Hapgood placed a quantity of boots in the hands of the defendants, to be sold on commission ; and before the 16th of…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note for $544-46, signed by the defendants, dated November 14th 1839, payable to Bryant & Hapgood or order, on demand with interest, and by them mdorsed to Hutchins Hapgood, the plaintiffs’ testator At the trial in the court of common pleas, evidence was introduced tending to prove the following facts : In the year 1838, said Bryant & Hapgood placed a quantity of boots in the hands of the defendants, to be sold on commission ; and before the 16th of July 1839, the defendants sold them to divers persons .— the whole sales amounting to $ 915. On the 12th of July 1839,…
1Opinion of the CourtHubbard, J.
By the law merchant, it is clearly settled that a factor may sell the goods of his principal on credit, and that if he uses due diligence in regard to the solvency of the purchaser, he is not responsible, in case of loss by reason of the purchaser’s failure before the term of credit expires. 2 Kent Com. (3d ed.) 623. Goodenow v. Tyler, 7 Mass. 36.
In the present case, the sales by the defendants were made in the usual manner, and the terms of credit were reasonable. And it is made certain by their account rendered July 15th 1839, that the sales were at the risk of the principals.
The only…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Goodenow v. TylerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Robertson v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1826