Bartlett v. Raymond
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, on an account annexed, for goods sold and delivered on November 18, and December 4, 1882. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. That, if the goods were sold at all, they were sold to the firm of George J. Raymond and Company, in which, firm the defendant was not a partner, and had no interest.
Read the full summary
Contract, on an account annexed, for goods sold and delivered on November 18, and December 4, 1882. Answer: 1. A general denial. 2. That, if the goods were sold at all, they were sold to the firm of George J. Raymond and Company, in which, firm the defendant was not a partner, and had no interest. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The following appeared in evidence, and was uncontradicted : From 1877, to July 24, 1882, the defendant had done business at several places in Boston, and in 1879, and from that time until…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The defendant not only suffered his name to be used as part of the firm name, but made the bargain for the goods in person, and in the shop bearing the firm name upon its sign. The plaintiffs had no notice that he was not interested in the business. They seem to have known the firm name, and, under the instruction excepted to, we think the jury must have found that they also knew the name of Raymond, with whom they dealt. Certainly it does not appear from the bill of exceptions that they did not know his name. Without inquiring whether all these circumstances are necessary to the defendant’s…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Poillon v. . SecorNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
3Cited by4 opinions
- Warner v. FullerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Standard Oil Co. of New York v. HendersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Brigham v. HerrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Mallory S. S. Co. v. GarfieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926