Sullivan v. Arcand
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, upon a guaranty signed by the defendant. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Sherman, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
The guaranty sued on is undoubtedly ambiguous. It is as follows: “ Fall River, March 17th, 1890. I hereby agree to hold myself responsible for all goods bought by A. P. Gagné of Mark A. Sullivan. George E. Arcand.”
For the purpose of showing what this guaranty means, it was competent to show the facts known to the parties with reference to which the guaranty was given. It appears from the auditor’s report that the plaintiff was a wholesale and retail dealer in painters’ supplies in Fall River; that A. P. Gagné, in March, 1890, went into business as a painter; that a few days before March 17,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Stoops v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Collins v. WickwireMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- White's Bank of Buffalo v. MylesNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Hotchkiss v. BarnesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1867
- Melendy v. CapenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by14 opinions
- Merrimack Valley National Bank v. BairdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Lee v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co. v. FlintMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Leverone v. ArancioMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Picard v. BeersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.