Packer v. Hinckley Locomotive Works
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for a balance due on an account annexed for eerain cargoes of coal. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., it appeared that the plaintiffs were shippers of coal in New York city; that Wm. Wallace & Co., in Boston, during 1872, 1878, and as late as August, 1874, by permission of the plaintiffs, solicited and communicated to them many orders for cargoes of coal from consumers and dealers in and about Boston.
Read the full summary
Contract for a balance due on an account annexed for eerain cargoes of coal. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., it appeared that the plaintiffs were shippers of coal in New York city; that Wm. Wallace & Co., in Boston, during 1872, 1878, and as late as August, 1874, by permission of the plaintiffs, solicited and communicated to them many orders for cargoes of coal from consumers and dealers in and about Boston. The defendant’s evidence tended to show that the plaintiffs solicited Wallace & Co. to obtain orders for them as late as January, 1875. The plaintiffs’ evidence…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
The first ruling asked for was rightly refused. The question to be determined by the jury was not whether, as matter of right, as between the plaintiffs and Wallace & Co., they had authority to receive payment of the cargoes of coal, but whether, as between the plaintiffs and the defendant, there had been such transactions as to warrant the defendant honestly to believe that Wallace & Co. were authorized to receive the payment in behalf of the plaintiffs, and whether in fact the defendant had in good faith, under such belief, paid the same. The abstract right, as between the plaintiffs and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Green v. Boston & Lowell RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Waynesville Nat. Bank v. IronsUnited States Circuit Court · 1881
- Rich v. CrandallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886