Shaw v. Hall
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover the price of a horse alleged to have been purchased by the defendant through one Golden. Trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., who ruled, upon the plaintiff’s evidence, that the jury would not be authorized in finding that Golden had any original authority to buy the horse for the defendant, or that the defendant had so far ratified any unauthorized act as to be bound thereby; and directed a verdict for the defendant.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover the price of a horse alleged to have been purchased by the defendant through one Golden. Trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., who ruled, upon the plaintiff’s evidence, that the jury would not be authorized in finding that Golden had any original authority to buy the horse for the defendant, or that the defendant had so far ratified any unauthorized act as to be bound thereby; and directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions. The nature of the evidence appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtDeyens, J.
At the trial, there was testimony that one Golden, assuming to act as agent for the defendant, had purchased the horse of the plaintiff; but the learned judge who presided was of opinion that there was no evidence of the authority of Golden thus to act, and therefore nothing to be submitted to the jury. We are to consider, therefore, not the weight of the evidence, but whether any evidence appeared which would have justified the finding that such authority existed.
The horse was in the possession of the defendant, and had been so for ten days, when Golden made the trade testified to by the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- East Hampton Bank & Trust Co. v. CollinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Jefferds v. AlvardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Lonergan v. PeckMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884