Hill v. Chase

• Decision Date: 26 November 1886
• Parties: HILL v. CHASE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

143 Mass. 129

9 N.E. 30

HILL v. CHASE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

November 26, 1886

COUNSEL

F.L. Evans, for defendant.

No contract was completed until the defendant, at her home in New Hampshire, accepted the money from Mrs. Shirley. Until that time the plaintiff had entered into agreement, but had merely made an offer, which she could have withdrawn at any time by notice to Mrs. Shirley. And no contract could be completed until the communication and acceptance of the offer, and, in this jurisdiction, the communication of the acceptance. McCulloch v. Eagle Ins. Co., 1 Pick. 278; Lewis v. Browning, 130 Mass. 173. Even adopting the doctrine of other jurisdictions, that, in cases of communication by mail, the contract is complete before the receipt of notice of acceptance, no contract was completed in this case until the time above stated. See Lewis v Browning, 130 Mass. 173, 175. Consequently, the contract being completed by acceptance in New Hampshire, it was made in New Hampshire, (McIntyre v. Parks, 3 Metc. 207; Worcester Bank v. Wells, 8 Metc. 107; Merchant v. Chapman, 4 Allen, 364; Lawrence v. Bassett, 5 Allen, 140; Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374,) and must be controlled by the law of New Hampshire. If that law gave no remedy, plaintiff cannot recover in an action here. Powers v. Lynch, 3 Mass 77; Dunscomb v. Bunker, 2 Metc. 8; Stanton v Demerritt, 122 Mass. 495. No question of ratification of agency arises.

N.J Holden, for plaintiff, cited Fuller v. Ruby, 10 Gray, 288; Pettingill v. Porter, 8 Allen, 1; O'Connell v. Jacobs, 115 Mass. 21; Whiton v. Nichols, 3 Allen, 583; Allen v. Mooney, 130 Mass. 155; Hackett v. Potter, 135 Mass. 349; McIntyre v. Parks, 3 Metc. 207; Rice v. Dwight Manuf'g Co., 2 Cush. 80; Orcutt v. Nelson, 1 Gray, 536; Lawrence v. Bassett, 5 Allen, 140; Stewart v. Jenkins, 6 Allen, 300.

OPINION

MORTON C.J.

The only question presented in this bill of exceptions is whether the presiding justice of the superior court, who tried the cause without a jury, was justified in finding that the contract sued on was made in this state. It appeared in evidence that the defendant, a married woman living in the state of New Hampshire, in the summer of the year 1864, employed her sister Mrs. Shirley to borrow for her $50 of Mr. Hill, her brother, living in Salem, in the state of Massachusetts. Mr. Hill declined to lend the money, but his wife, out of her own money, delivered to Mrs. Shirley $50, together with a paper of which the following is a copy:

"SALEM, July, 1864.

"Borrowed and received from Nancy D. Hill the sum of fifty dollars. Sign this and return it."

Mrs Shirley carried the money and paper to the defendant, who took and kept the money, signed the paper, knowing its contents, and returned it to the plaintiff at Salem, in this state. The presiding justice was justified in finding that, according to the understanding and purpose of the parties, the plaintiff lent the defendant, through her agent, Mrs. Shirley, the sum of $50 at Salem, in Massachusetts, and that the defendant ratified the acts of her agent. There is no evidence which shows that the plaintiff employed Mrs. Shirley as her agent to lend money for her in New Hampshire. The justifiable inference from all the evidence is that the parties intended that the transaction should be in form, what it was in substance, a loan by the plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff assuming what the evidence shows to have been true, that the defendant had no choice as to the person of whom she borrowed, and that she would ratify the act of her agent. This...