Keegan v. Cox
| Decision Date | 28 November 1874 |
| Citation | 116 Mass. 289 |
| Parties | Peter F. Keegan v. Patrick Cox |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Essex. Replevin. Writ dated July 11, 1873. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the defendant, to this court, on appeal, on a case stated, in substance as follows:
On March 29, 1873, the plaintiff, and James W. Keegan his brother, were partners in the retail provision business in Lawrence; and owned and used in their business the goods replevied in this action. On that day they, with the knowledge and advice of their parents, executed and delivered to the defendant a personal mortgage of the goods replevied conditioned to pay to the defendant three notes of even date for $ 100 each in six months, from March 29, 1873, which notes were signed by both partners.
The consideration for these notes and the mortgage was an outstanding account of $ 130 in favor of the defendant, for meat sold and delivered to the firm; and also the payment for meat thereafter to be delivered by the defendant to the firm at the current market prices to the extent of $ 170 in value. Within a month thereafter, and in pursuance of the agreement the defendant at different times delivered meat to the firm to the amount of $ 168.59 in value. The defendant was ready and willing to deliver the remaining value of $ 1.41 according to agreement, but the business of the partners was interrupted by attaching creditors, and they were not ready to receive it. All of the meat so delivered by the defendant before and after the date of said mortgage, was resold by the firm to its customers.
Most of the meat sold and delivered after the date of the mortgage, was sold and delivered after James W. Keegan became of age. On May 23, 1873, the firm paid the defendant $ 50, in part payment of the mortgage notes.
On March 29, 1873, the day the mortgage was delivered, both of the partners were minors, and were living with their parents. The plaintiff was then nineteen years old, and his brother James became of age April 10, 1873. At the time said notes and mortgage were being executed, the father of the partners, in their presence and upon inquiry made by the defendant, told the defendant that James W. Keegan was twenty-one years of age in April, 1872. Neither of said partners made any denial of this statement.
On July 9, 1873, the defendant took possession, for breach of the conditions, under the provisions of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rand v. Hanson
... ... exception taken at the hearing. See Mayhew v ... Durfee, 138 Mass. 584; Railroad Co. v. Wilder, ... 137 Mass. 536; Hecht v. Batcheller, 147 Mass. 335, ... 339, 17 N.E. 651; Fitzsimmons v. Carroll, 128 Mass ... 401; Charlton v. Donnell, 100 Mass. 229; Keegan ... v. Cox, 116 Mass. 289; West v. Platt, 120 Mass ... 421; Bank v. Harris, 118 Mass. 147; Powers v ... Institution, 122 Mass. 443; Hovey v. Crane, 10 ... Pick. 440; Com. v. Cutter, 13 Allen, 393. In ... deciding the case on the ground that the plaintiff has failed ... to show that service ... ...
-
Chamberlain v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp.
...before he attempted to exercise it. Boyden v. Boyden, 9 Metc. 519; Chandler v. Simmons, 97 Mass. 508, 514,93 Am.Dec. 117; Keegan v. Cox, 116 Mass. 289; Contracts, § 239. Whether, if there had been an effective disaffirmance by the insured of his contract with the Insurance Budget Plan. Inc.......
-
Porter v. Wakefield
... ... error of law must have been made by the court below in ... rendering the decision appealed from. Dorr v ... Richardson, 114 Mass. 346; Pub.St. c. 152, § 10. No ... question of fact, or decision involving drawing of inferences ... of fact, will be reviewed on such appeal. Keegan v ... Cox, 116 Mass. 289. At the time of the service of the ... plaintiff's writ the trustee had in his possession ... property of the defendant subject to attachment. It is ... well-settled law in this commonwealth that a trustee is not ... entitled to retain, as against the plaintiff's ... ...
-
McDonald v. Sargent
...made by a minor is not void, but voidable only, and may be ratified after he becomes of age. Boyden v. Boyden, 9 Metc. 519; Keegan v. Cox, 116 Mass. 289. It was competent for the defendants to show, aside from the question of pleading, what the agreement was which had been ratified. As to t......