Hawkins v. Chace
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Case to recover damages for the non-performance of a contract. The action was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, before Strong J. The plaintiffs produced in evidence a writing in the following words : “W. H. Hawkins & Co. Bought of William H. Chace, 20 Bbls. flour at 5¿ ..... $ 110. Recd pay'. February 24, 1835.” This bill of parcels was not written nor signed by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Case to recover damages for the non-performance of a contract. The action was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, before Strong J. The plaintiffs produced in evidence a writing in the following words : “W. H. Hawkins & Co. Bought of William H. Chace, 20 Bbls. flour at 5¿ ..... $ 110. Recd pay'. February 24, 1835.” This bill of parcels was not written nor signed by the defendant. The plaintiffs then called one Willard as a witness, who testified, that he wrote the memorandum in question, at the request of the defendant, but whether he was requested to write the words contained in this…
1Per curiam
The questions arising are : 1. Whether this bill of parcels is a sufficient memorandum of a contract, within the statute against frauds; 2. Whether it was signed by the witness, Willard, by the authority of the defendant, and delivered to the plaintiffs; and if so, then, 3. Whether there was evidence sufficient to prove that the contract was rescinded.
Í. As to the sufficiency of the memorandum. It states -that the plaintiffs had bought the flour of the defendant, the number of barrels, and the price ; but it does not state when the flour was to be delivered, or when the price was to be paid.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Penniman v. HartshornMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Van Rensselaer v. DoleNew York Supreme Court · 1800
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lipkowitz v. FreedmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921