Odiorne v. Maxcy
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit upon two promissory notes, given by one Perley Bice to the Neponset Cotton Factory Company, and indorsed to the plaintiffs by Levi Maxcy, agent of the said company, and signing his name as such. The action was tried at the last November term, before the Chief Justice, upon the general issue.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon two promissory notes, given by one Perley Bice to the Neponset Cotton Factory Company, and indorsed to the plaintiffs by Levi Maxcy, agent of the said company, and signing his name as such. The action was tried at the last November term, before the Chief Justice, upon the general issue. It was in evidence, that the defendants composed a company, under the above name, who had established and carried on a cotton manufactory in the county of Bristol; some of them residing in the city of Baltimore, and the others in this Commonwealth. Levi Maxcy acted as their agent in and about…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Putnam, J.
The plaintiffs undertake to show, that the defendants authorized Levi Maxcy to make the contract declared upon, in their behalf. This authority may be either express or implied. The former is not suggested ; but the plaintiffs argue, that the latter is to be inferred from the general agency which the defendants intrusted to Mr. Maxcy. We do not, however, think ourselves warranted to say, that the law will necessarily imply a promise, on the part of the defendants, from the facts reported. If the sale of the iron was *149made by the plaintiffs to…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Gaines v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- McDermott v. JacksonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- English v. EnglishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Kinder v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Hovey v. MagillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.