Buffum v. York Manufacturing Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract. The fifth count of the declaration, which is the only one material to be stated, was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says the defendant is a manufacturer of machines for making artificial ice; that "on or about November, 1892, it entered into a contract with the plaintiff, whereby it agreed to make the plaintiff its agent to procure purchasers for said machines in and about Boston, and to pay him for his services in procuring such purchasers in said territory, as a…
Read the full summary
Contract. The fifth count of the declaration, which is the only one material to be stated, was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says the defendant is a manufacturer of machines for making artificial ice; that "on or about November, 1892, it entered into a contract with the plaintiff, whereby it agreed to make the plaintiff its agent to procure purchasers for said machines in and about Boston, and to pay him for his services in procuring such purchasers in said territory, as a commission, a price varying according to the size and capacity of said machines; that the amount which the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
The defendant’s first exception is to the admission in evidence of five of its letters written to the plaintiff, dated May 9,11, October 31, November 6, and November 18,1895, and of four letters of the plaintiff, to which those five letters were answers ; namely, one of May 8, answered by the defendant’s letters of May 9 and 11; one of October 22, answered by the letter of October 31; one of November 2, answered by the letter of November 6; and one of November 12, answered by the letter of November 18. The defendant also excepted to one letter written by the plaintiff, dated J une 29, which…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Starzec v. KidaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Smith v. AbbottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Hughes v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Sullivan v. MorseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Rosenberger v. H. E. Wilcox Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.