Goodwin v. Cunningham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
* This was assumpsit, brought to recover the proceeds [ * 193] of certain property, consigned by the house of Goodwin fy Whiting, of which the plaintiff is surviving partner, to the defendant in Russia, to be by him sold and accounted for. A trial was had before the Chief Justice, at the last November term.
Read the full summary
* This was assumpsit, brought to recover the proceeds [ * 193] of certain property, consigned by the house of Goodwin fy Whiting, of which the plaintiff is surviving partner, to the defendant in Russia, to be by him sold and accounted for. A trial was had before the Chief Justice, at the last November term. By an account of sales rendered by the defendant it appeared that a balance was due to the house on the 14th of July, 1812, equal to the sum for which the jury returned their verdict; unless a note of hand, signed by Goodwin fy Whiting, for $ 1600, payable to Robert Roberts, or order, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
There can be no doubt that the verdict is right. The jury were satisfied, by proper evidence, that the defendant had no property in the note which he has claimed to set off; so that, if he had brought his claim within our statutes of set-off in point of form, he would have failed for want of property in the note.
If the defendant had elected to take this note to himself, even when in Archangel, the circumstances under which he would have done it would have defeated his claim against the assignees of Goodwin 8f Whiting. He received notice of their failure, and of the assignment of this…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- President of Hallowell & Augusta Bank v. HowardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Jenkins v. BrewsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
3Cited by2 opinions
- Taunton & South Boston Turnpike Corp. v. WhitingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Trustees of Amherst Academy v. CowlsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1828