Perkins v. Hinsdale
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on an account annexed for butcher’s meat delivered by the plaintiff, a wholesale dealer, to Charles F. Hinsdale, a retail dealer. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., it appeared that Charles F. was a nephew of the defendants, and had accounts with the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Contract on an account annexed for butcher’s meat delivered by the plaintiff, a wholesale dealer, to Charles F. Hinsdale, a retail dealer. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., it appeared that Charles F. was a nephew of the defendants, and had accounts with the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that the last credit which he gave him was on September 16, 1865; that on September 25 following, James H. Hinsdale, one of the defendants, came to the plaintiff’s store and said he had heard that the plaintiff had refused Charles F. credit; that he replied that he had given…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
The evidence was very strong that the contract of the defendants was a collateral undertaking, and so within the statute of frauds; and would have fully warranted such a finding by the jury. But the plaintiff in one part of his testimony expressly stated that the sole credit was given by him to the defendants, and none to Charles F. Hinsdale ; and the letter written by one of the defendants to Mr. Beach, the attorney, has some semblance of an admission of an original and direct responsibility. Considering, therefore, that the evidence was *160chiefly oral, not absolutely distinct in its terms, or…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Gassett v. GlazierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Lyon v. ChamberlainMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Ellis v. WilcoxHawaii Supreme Court · 1884
- McBride & Co. v. LathamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887