Upton v. Suffolk County Mills
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit for breach of a warranty that certain flour should keep sweet during a voyage to California. The defendants, a corporation established for the manufacture and sale of flour, among other grounds of defence, not necessary to report, denied that they undertook and warranted as set forth in the declaration.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for breach of a warranty that certain flour should keep sweet during a voyage to California. The defendants, a corporation established for the manufacture and sale of flour, among other grounds of defence, not necessary to report, denied that they undertook and warranted as set forth in the declaration. At the trial in this court, before Bigelow, J. it appeared that the plaintiff, being a merchant engaged in the California trade, on the 19th of January, 1850, obtained from the agent of the defendants the following memorandum of agreement in writing, namely: “ I am to furnish Mr.…
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
The court have not found it necessary to form an opinion upon a question which was ably argued, namely, whether the contract declared on legally purports to be a contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. Assuming that it does, yet we are all of opinion that the defendants are not bound by it, because Allcott had no authority to bind them by such a contract. It appears from his testimony that he was their general selling agent, and had no special instructions in regard to making sales ; that no authority (by which he doubtless means express authority) was ever given to him by the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- The Monte AllegreSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Goodenow v. TylerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Jones v. WarnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stephens v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Stephens v. . Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912