Legal Opinion

Lilienthal v. Suffolk Brewing Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 27, 1891PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Contract to recover the price of hops sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Trial in the Superior Court, before Staples, J., who ordered a verdict for the plaintiffs, and reported the case for the determination of this court. The facts appear in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.

This is an action of contract, for refusing to accept and pay for seventy bales of hops, bought of the plaintiffs by the defendant. The defences are that the defendant was induced to make the contract by the fraudulent representations of the plaintiffs’ agent, one Horst, as to the market price of hops, and that the agreement was made subject to a condition on the same matter which was not satisfied. According to the testimony of Smith, the defendant’s president, who made the bargain with Horst, Horst called on him several times, trying to sell hops. On a Saturday Horst said that hops were…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wilson v. PowersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
  2. Deming v. DarlingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  3. Whiteside v. BrawleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
  4. Poland v. BrownellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
  5. Davis v. RandallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Clapp v. WilderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
  2. Kilgore v. BruceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
  3. Snider v. DebanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
  4. Hart v. MarburySupreme Court of Florida · 1921
  5. Bartnett v. HandyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API