Pool v. Tuttle
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ, for goods sold and delivered, $26 — and a due bill for goods, $4. On trial before Perham J. in tbe Court of Common Pleas, tbe plaintiffs offered evidence tending to prove that when they sold the goods charged to the defendant, he let them have a note therefor against one Rufus K. Lane, for $30, agreeing that if Lane did not pay the note the first time payment was asked of hMj he, the defendant,…
Read the full summary
This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ, for goods sold and delivered, $26 — and a due bill for goods, $4. On trial before Perham J. in tbe Court of Common Pleas, tbe plaintiffs offered evidence tending to prove that when they sold the goods charged to the defendant, he let them have a note therefor against one Rufus K. Lane, for $30, agreeing that if Lane did not pay the note the first time payment was asked of hMj he, the defendant, would take back the note and pay them ■for it, of for the goods. That, they called on Lane for payment, hut did not obtain…
1Opinion of the Court
Mellen C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the instructions of the Judge in the Court below, the jury, by returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, have established the following facts, namely, that Bane’s note was not absolutely received by the plaintiffs of the defendant in payment for the goods which lie purchased of them ; but that the defendant, *470at the time of the bargain, agreed that if Lane should not pay the note the first time the plaintiffs should call on him for payment, the defendant would take back the note and pay them for the goods : that they did call on Lane…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- The BANK OF COLUMBIA v. PATTERSON’S Adm’rSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Miles v. MoodieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817