Tripp v. New Metallic Packing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, in two counts, on the following agreement in writing, executed by the defendant: “ Boston, April 25, 1881. Due Thomas Tripp two thousand dollars upon the successful working of a metallic packing this day purchased of him.” The first count declared on the agreement as a promissory note. The second count alleged performance of the condition stated in the agreement, and that the defendant owed the plaintiff the amount named therein.
Read the full summary
Contract, in two counts, on the following agreement in writing, executed by the defendant: “ Boston, April 25, 1881. Due Thomas Tripp two thousand dollars upon the successful working of a metallic packing this day purchased of him.” The first count declared on the agreement as a promissory note. The second count alleged performance of the condition stated in the agreement, and that the defendant owed the plaintiff the amount named therein. Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The defendant corporation was organized early…
1Opinion of the CourtW. Allen, J.
The declarations of Currier were not competent. The money was payable upon a condition, and neither *503the treasurer nor the individual directors of the defendant corporation were authorized to decide that the condition had been performed and the money become due, nor to waive or admit the performance of the condition. Admission of indebtedness on the contract was beyond the scope of the authority of the treasurer, and would be the mere declaration of a third person, which could not affect the defendant. Corbin v. Adams, 6 Cush. 93. Pratt v. Ogdensburg & Lake Champlain Railroad, 102 Mass. 557.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Grinnell v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Pratt v. Ogdensburg & Lake Champlain RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by1 opinion
- Browning v. HinkleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892