Warren v. Jones
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the ruling of Goodenow, J. This was an action on a contract of sale of the defendant’s apparatus for the manufacture of soap, the ashes and soap on hand, and the good will and trade in Kennebunk and vicinity.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the ruling of Goodenow, J. This was an action on a contract of sale of the defendant’s apparatus for the manufacture of soap, the ashes and soap on hand, and the good will and trade in Kennebunk and vicinity. The plaintiff opened the case to the jury, and offered the following evidence, viz. : — That on and prior to the 16th day of October, 1858, the defendant was engaged in the business of the manufacture and sale of soap in the towns of Kennebunk, Kennebunkport, Wells and Lyman; and had carried on and was then carrying on trade with customers residing in those towns; that,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Cutting, J.
In our view, of this case, it becomes unnecessary to consider the rulings of the Judge at Nisi Prius, made previous to the amendment of the writ, by the insertion of the new count on the written contract, which was as follows, viz.:— "Kennebunk, Oct. 16, 1858.
"Mr. Edmund Warren,
" Bo’t of George T. Jones,
"All the apparatus for making soap, consisting of boilers, leaches, bbls., tubs, &c.; also, all the ashes and soap, &c., now on hand; also, one wagon, one pung-double runners; 'also, all my trade and customers.
"Rc’d payment by cash and notes,
"…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago & Alton RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- My Laundry Co. v. SchmelingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Lord v. LordSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
- Everett J. Prescott, Inc. v. RossDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2005
- Home Telephone Co. v. Sarcoxie Light & Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.