New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Hayden
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against Joel Hayden, the Nonotuck Silk Company, Lewis Bodman and five others, on an agreement contained in two papers signed by them. The first was as follows : “ Williamsburg, January 26,1866. To J. E. Sheffield, Esquire, Committee of the Northampton & New Haven Railroad Company.
Read the full summary
Contract against Joel Hayden, the Nonotuck Silk Company, Lewis Bodman and five others, on an agreement contained in two papers signed by them. The first was as follows : “ Williamsburg, January 26,1866. To J. E. Sheffield, Esquire, Committee of the Northampton & New Haven Railroad Company. The undersigned, representing a large portion of business on the line of the proposed railroad from Northampton to Williamsburg, propose that, if your company will extend their road to Williamsburg as soon as practicable, we will undertake to secure good, responsible subscriptions to the stock of your…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
It does not appear that Lucius Dimock had any authority to bind the Nonotuck Silk Company by his signature to the alleged contract; and the plaintiffs therefore cannot maintain their action against that corporation.
But with regard to the other defendants the case stands upon other grounds. The written proposal of January 26,1866, must be considered as a petition to the plaintiffs to extend their railroad from Northampton to Williamsburg. In that proposal, they describe themselves as “ representing a large portion of business on the line of the proposed railroad,” — a form of expression which…
2Cited by3 opinions
- John Soley & Sons, Inc. v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Lenn v. RicheMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954
- Wood v. Ridgeville CollegeIndiana Supreme Court · 1888