Briggs v. Humphrey
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon an account annexed. At the trial in the superior court, before Morton, J., the only item in dispute was a charge for two casks of boiled oil sediment, respecting which the answer of the defendant was as follows: “ And the defendant says that at the time he bargained with the plaintiffs for said two casks and contents, the plaintiffs warranted said contents to be pure boiled oil sediment, and the defendant purchased said contents, relying upon said warranty.
Read the full summary
Contract upon an account annexed. At the trial in the superior court, before Morton, J., the only item in dispute was a charge for two casks of boiled oil sediment, respecting which the answer of the defendant was as follows: “ And the defendant says that at the time he bargained with the plaintiffs for said two casks and contents, the plaintiffs warranted said contents to be pure boiled oil sediment, and the defendant purchased said contents, relying upon said warranty. And the defendant says said contents were not pure boiled oil sediment, and he returned the same to the plaintiffs, and…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
The instructions as to the burden of proof were sufficiently accurate. They required the jury to find that the plaintiffs sold and delivered the article under a contract of sale which had been fully complied with by him, in order to entitle him to a verdict. The request made by the defendant, after the charge to the jury, that they should be instructed that on the issues raised by the answers the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs, was rightly refused. Such an instruction would have been erroneous. One of the grounds of defence alleged in the answer was, that the plaintiffs had made false…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Phoenix Iron Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1904