Legal Opinion

American Mining & Smelting Co. v. Converse

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 2, 1900PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Contract, to recover a balance alleged to be due for money-advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Fessenden, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendants alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, C. J.

This was an action to recover a balance alleged to be due for cash advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants were trustees under a deed of a mine, and lived in Boston. The money was advanced in Colo- . rada to one Armitage, the manager of the mine. The contest is on the authority of the manager to make the defendants liable, and the case is here on exceptions, especially to a refusal to direct a verdict for the defendants. On the testimony the case presented two aspects. ' One, it almost might be called the more obvious, was that the transactions were not loans in a proper…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Metcalf v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
  2. Harrod v. McDanielsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
  3. Herbert S. Gilbert & Co. v. McGinnisIllinois Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Boyer v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  2. Roy v. FIRST EASTERN BANKDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API