McKinney v. Wilson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract in two counts, with a count in tort. The first count alleged that the plaintiffs, at the defendant’s request, purchased for him ten horses and delivered them to him at Glasgow, but the defendant refused to pay the plaintiffs the amount of the prices paid by them for the horses, with charges and commissions, as he had promised. The second count was on an account annexed. The third count was in tort for the conversion of the horses.
Read the full summary
Contract in two counts, with a count in tort. The first count alleged that the plaintiffs, at the defendant’s request, purchased for him ten horses and delivered them to him at Glasgow, but the defendant refused to pay the plaintiffs the amount of the prices paid by them for the horses, with charges and commissions, as he had promised. The second count was on an account annexed. The third count was in tort for the conversion of the horses. Trial in the Superior Court; before Putnam, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The plaintiffs are copartners doing business in…
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
The plaintiffs declare in tort as well as in contract, but the exceptions relate only to the two counts in contract. Under these counts, the plaintiffs must show a delivery of, or an offer to deliver, the horses to the defendant on payment of the sum of money agreed to be paid. The horses were not sent to the defendant, but to one McKinley. The plaintiffs must therefore show either that McKinley'was the agent of the defendant to receive for him the horses, or that some delivery or offer to deliver was made to the defendant by McKinley or some one else in behalf of the plaintiffs.
The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Jackman v. City of GloucesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Tucker v. UtleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897