Clark v. Nichols
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover damages for nonperformance of an oral agreement, by the terms of which the defendant was to deliver to the plaintiff 15,000 feet of ash bending-stuff, for the price of $34 per 1000 feet, and 15,000 feet of ash plank, for the price of $25 per 1000 feet, before July 1,1869. The answer set up the statute of frauds.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover damages for nonperformance of an oral agreement, by the terms of which the defendant was to deliver to the plaintiff 15,000 feet of ash bending-stuff, for the price of $34 per 1000 feet, and 15,000 feet of ash plank, for the price of $25 per 1000 feet, before July 1,1869. The answer set up the statute of frauds. At the trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., the plaintiff testified to the contract as above set forth; and also that bending-stuff was the butts of trees sawed so as to render them suitable to be manufactured into wagon shafts, and that “ the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
As the contract is stated in the bill of exceptions, we think it was a contract to sell and deliver the bending-stuff and plank, and not a contract for labor in manufacturing the articles. It is not therefore like the cases of Mixer v. Howarth, 21 Pick. 205, and Spencer v. Cone, 1 Met. 283; but like Gardner v. Joy, 9 Met. 177; Lamb v. Crafts, 12 Met. 353; and Waterman v. Meigs, 4 Cush. 497 ; and was within the statute of frauds.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Todd v. Dowd's heirsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
3Cited by12 opinions
- Goddard v. BinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Meincke v. FalkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Golden Eagle Milling Co. v. Old Homestead BakeryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Burrell v. HighleymanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Bauscher v. GiesMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.