Goodrich v. Coffin
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On MOTION AND ISNCKPTIONS. This was an action of assumpsit to recover for lumber and sawing the same. The declaration was in a single count upon account stated. The account annexed to the plaintiff’s writ was as follows : E. Gr. Coffin to John D. Baker, Dr. January 20, 1886, to balance due on lumber and sawing lumber as agreed on settlement between the parties, $110.00 Interest, 13.20 $123.20 Plea, general issue.
Read the full summary
On MOTION AND ISNCKPTIONS. This was an action of assumpsit to recover for lumber and sawing the same. The declaration was in a single count upon account stated. The account annexed to the plaintiff’s writ was as follows : E. Gr. Coffin to John D. Baker, Dr. January 20, 1886, to balance due on lumber and sawing lumber as agreed on settlement between the parties, $110.00 Interest, 13.20 $123.20 Plea, general issue. When the cause came on for trial, the plaintiff introduced no evidence of an accounting, or a statement of their accounts, had between the defendant and the plaintiff’s intestate in…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The plaintiff’s intestate, in his life-time, had an account against the defendant for lumber, upon which a balance ivas due when he died. After his death the plaintiff, his administrator, and the defendant had frequent conversations about the bill. The administrator relies on an agreement upon an account stated between himself and the defendant, and we are unwilling to say that an agreement of the kind was not proved by such conversations. The frequent admissions and promises of payment made by the defendant to plaintiff may not *328unreasonably be considered as having established an…
2Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Bertelsen & Petersen Engineering Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Converse v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- United States v. Bertelsen & Petersen Engineering Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1938