Buell v. Chapin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on an account annexed for fifty-eight dollars collected from Charles H. Tower. The answer admitted the receipt of the money by the defendant; but alleged that he collected it as attorney of the plaintiff, to whom he sent it in pursuance of his directions.
Read the full summary
Contract on an account annexed for fifty-eight dollars collected from Charles H. Tower. The answer admitted the receipt of the money by the defendant; but alleged that he collected it as attorney of the plaintiff, to whom he sent it in pursuance of his directions. At the trial in the superior court, before Devens, J., “ it was not disputed that the defendant received the money under the following circumstances: The plaintiff, who lived at Pittsfield, inclosed and sent by mail a promissory note against Tower (payable to his own order and indorsed in blank) to George M. Stearns, an…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, J.
The court is unanimously of opinion that the defendant is entitled to a new trial. In regard to the transmission of money by mail, there is a distinction between the relation of creditor and debtor and that of principal and agent. A debtor is bound to pay his creditor in person or his authorized agent, and does not fulfil his obligation by making all reasonable efforts to transmit to the creditor the amount of the debt; and therefore depositing in the post-office a letter containing the money and addressed to the creditor does not discharge the debt, unless, by the creditor’s express…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Kenyon v. Knights Templar & Masonic Mutual Aid Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Cities Service Oil Co. v. National Shawmut BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
- Console v. TorchinskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
- Katcher v. American Express Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1920
- Farmer v. PittsNebraska Supreme Court · 1922
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.