Wood v. Finson
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Motion and Exceptions by Defendants. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff, who was an oil merchant in Boston, against the defendants to recover the value of certain oil purchased of him during the years 1894 and 1895 all of which is admitted to have been paid for except the item of October 4, 1894, for twenty barrels of kerosene oil amounting to $87.28. The verdict was for the plaintiff for the sum of $95.50. In addition to a general motion, the…
Read the full summary
On Motion and Exceptions by Defendants. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff, who was an oil merchant in Boston, against the defendants to recover the value of certain oil purchased of him during the years 1894 and 1895 all of which is admitted to have been paid for except the item of October 4, 1894, for twenty barrels of kerosene oil amounting to $87.28. The verdict was for the plaintiff for the sum of $95.50. In addition to a general motion, the defendants took exceptions to the admission of testimony at the trial and which are stated in the opinion of the court. The…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
Assumpsit by the plaintiffs, oil merchants in Boston, to recover of the defendants, traders in Bucksport, the value of twenty barrels of kerosene oil, to be delivered free on board vessel in Boston.
Plaintiffs made the sale through one Emery, a general traveling salesman and agent of theirs. The plaintiffs had previously employed one Carlow as their salesman and agent, who had repeatedly sold the defendants burning oil. Emery succeeded him, and made sale of the oil in suit.
The defense set up that the contract of sale called for insurance of the oil by the plaintiffs, instructions having been…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Huntsman v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Upton v. WinchesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Norris v. SpoffordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. SmithSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1944
- O'Neill v. WallMontana Supreme Court · 1936
- Bell v. SwimCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Lamonda v. ParizoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
- Sinopoli v. Chicago Railways Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1924