Gardner v. Bean
| Decision Date | 02 April 1878 |
| Citation | 124 Mass. 347 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Albert M. Gardner & another v. Elizabeth T. Bean |
Suffolk. Contract upon an account annexed for goods sold and delivered. Answer, a general denial. Writ dated April 12 1876.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., the report of an auditor was introduced in evidence, who found that the credit was originally given to Hiram P. Bean, the husband of the defendant, and the bill charged to him upon the plaintiffs' books; that the goods were delivered to him that the was acting as agent for his wife; and that there was due the plaintiffs the sum of $ 379.16, with interest from the date of the writ. The auditor also found that fourteen days after the date of the writ in this action, the plaintiffs signed with other parties an involuntary petition in bankruptcy against Hiram P. Bean, wherein they stated he was owing them this same debt; that this petition was sworn to in due form by one of the plaintiffs; and that on this petition Bean was put into bankruptcy. The plaintiffs introduced evidence that after the charge and delivery of the goods to Hiram P. Bean, they were informed by him and ascertained that he was agent for the defendant, and that the goods sold by the plaintiffs were used in the erection of buildings on the land of the defendant. Upon these facts, the defendant asked the judge to rule that the goods having been sold to Hiram P. Bean, and the plaintiffs having afterwards sued his wife, the defendant, as principal, and having signed and sworn to a petition in bankruptcy, in which they made the statement that Hiram P. Bean was owing them this debt, they could not maintain this action. But the judge declined so to rule, and instructed the jury that the facts that the plaintiffs originally gave the credit to Hiram P. Bean, and charged the goods to him, and also signed and swore to a petition in bankruptcy, in which they stated the same debt was owing by him, were strong evidence that the debt was due from him, and not from the defendant; but that these facts were not conclusive against the plaintiffs, but were to be considered by the jury in connection with the other evidence in the case. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
B. E. Perry & S.W. Creech, Jr., for the defendant.
C. C. Barton, for the plaintiffs.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cartan, McCarthy & Co. v. David
...v. Freeman, 4 Ired. Eq. 312; Allen v. Fuller, 118 Mass. 402; Noursc v. Henshaw, 123 Mass. 96; Major v. Holmes, 124 Mass. 108; Gardner v. Bean, 124 Mass. 347; Kenworthy v. Sawyer, 125 Mass. 28; Goodnow v. Hill, 125 Mass. 587; Wood v. Orford, 52 Cal. 412; Parry v. Kelly, 52 Cal. 334; Marlow v......
-
Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mashore
...are as follows: Rich v. City of Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 82, 41 N.W. 455; Pope v. Allis, 115 U.S. 363, 6 S. Ct. 69, 29 L. Ed. 393; Gardner v. Bean, 124 Mass. 347; Hunter v. Hunter or Milam, 111 Cal. 261, 43 P. 756, 31 L.R.A. 411, 52 Am. St. Rep. 180; Thrall v. Thrall, 60 Wis. 503, 19 N.W. 353;......
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mashore
...are as follows: Rich v. City of Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 82, 41 N.W. 455; Pope v. Allis, 115 U.S. 363, 6 S.Ct. 69, 29 L.Ed. 393; Gardner v. Bean, 124 Mass. 347; Hunter v. Hunter or Milam, 111 Cal. 261, 43 P. 31 L. R. A. 411, 52 Am. St. Rep. 180; Thrall v. Thrall, 60 Wis. 503, 19 N.W. 353; Cowa......
-
Maynard v. Fabyan
...Sending a bill to her husband in the circumstances disclosed was evidence, though not conclusive, of an election to hold him. Gardner v. Bean, 124 Mass. 347;Dyer v. Swift, 154 Mass. 159, 162, 28 N. E. 8;Reid v. Miller, 205 Mass. 80, 85, 91 N. E. 223;Estes v. Aaron, 227 Mass. 96, 99, 116 N. ......