Dickinson v. Richmond
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on an account annexed for service of the plaintiff’s stud horse for the defendant’s mare. Defence, that the contract was made on the Lord’s day.
Read the full summary
Contract on an account annexed for service of the plaintiff’s stud horse for the defendant’s mare. Defence, that the contract was made on the Lord’s day. Trial by jury was waived, and the case was heard and determined, in the superior court, upon an auditor’s report by which it appeared that the defendant’s mare was in the plaintiff’s pasture and the defendant said to the plaintiff, “ I want you to watch her and, if you find her in heat, to give her the service of your horse.” This was said on the Lord’s day. What reply the plaintiff made did not appear. The plaintiff afterwards found that…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
There does not appear to have been any violation of the statute for the observance of the Lord’s day, on the part of the plaintiff. Gen. Sts. c. 84. The evidence only shows that the request for the use of the plaintiff’s horse was made by the defendant on that day; but it was not proved that the plaintiff then agreed to comply with it. For aught that the case discloses, the plaintiff’s assent, which was necessary to consummate the contract, was given on a subsequent day. There *46is, therefore, a failure to show that the contract was tainted with illegality. Tuckerman v. Hinkley, 9 Allen, 452.
Bes…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Miles v. JanvrinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Stephens v. ClaySupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
- Cranson v. GossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Maher v. HaycockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.