Brickett v. Downs
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Conteact, for coal sold and delivered by the firm of Shorey and Brickett to the defendant. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. Payment.
Read the full summary
Conteact, for coal sold and delivered by the firm of Shorey and Brickett to the defendant. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. Payment. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Sheldon, J., there was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff and Charles E. Shorey were copartners in Lowell in the coal business; that the defendant was a dentist practising in the same city; that Shorey and Brickett went into insolvency, and an assignee was appointed ; and that, after the usual course in insolvency, the assignee sold the books and accounts of the firm to the plaintiff, who sued…
1Opinion of the CourtKnowlton, J.
The arrangement made between the defendant and Shorey, a member of the firm of Shorey and Briekett, that the coal delivered to the defendant by Shorey and Briekett should be paid for by setting off the private debt of Shorey to the defendant, and the settlement made on this basis between Shorey and the defendant without the knowledge of Briekett, were a fraud upon the firm, and are of no effect as against the plaintiff. The finding of the judge, that there was no evidence of actual fraud on the part of the defendant, must mean that there was no evidence of a wrongful purpose, but Only…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Locke v. LewisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Farley v. LovellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by6 opinions
- Proctor v. NorrisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Shapira v. BudishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Caldwell Backing & T. Co. v. PorterOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Eady v. Newton Coal & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Titus v. Gulf Liquid Fertilizer Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1961
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.