Hoyt v. Byrnes
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was indebitatus assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ to recover $13 — eight of which was for goods sold and delivered, and five for “ wasting paint.” The action was originally brought before a Justice of the Peace, and went up to the Court of Common Pleas by appeal, and was there tried before Whitman C. J. On trial, the plaintiff abandoned his charge of $5, and as to the residue the defendant pleaded a tender, and brought the money into Court.
Read the full summary
This was indebitatus assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ to recover $13 — eight of which was for goods sold and delivered, and five for “ wasting paint.” The action was originally brought before a Justice of the Peace, and went up to the Court of Common Pleas by appeal, and was there tried before Whitman C. J. On trial, the plaintiff abandoned his charge of $5, and as to the residue the defendant pleaded a tender, and brought the money into Court. It appeared in evidence that the defendant’s agent tendered the sum of eight dollars, partly in specie, and partly in current bank bills,…
1Opinion of the Court
Mellen C. J.
The only question in this case is, whether the tender made in the original action, in the manner and under the circumstances particularly stated in the exceptions, was a good and sufficient one. Three objections have been urged against its validity and effect. In our consideration of them, we shall reduce them to two, and reverse the order in which they have been presented.
The first inquiry is, whether the tender was made to a proper person. Hamilton, to whom it was made, at the time, and for many months before, had been a clerk in Hoyt’s store, during which period he was clothed…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Pope v. WhitridgeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1909
- Boise Lumber Co. v. Independent School DistrictIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Davis ex rel. Hutchinson v. MullisDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1969