Moss v. Goldstein
| Decision Date | 06 January 1926 |
| Citation | 254 Mass. 334,150 N.E. 91 |
| Parties | MOSS v. GOLDSTEIN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division; J. A. Bennett, Special Judge.
Action of contract by Charles Moss against S. L. Goldstein, to recover balance alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered to defendant. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order of the appellate division of the municipal court, dismissing report, defendant appeals. Order dismissing report affirmed.
B. Levin, of Roxbury, for appellant.
S. Sigilman, of Boston, for appellee.
This is an action of contract for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff being assignee of the account from Peter Benoit, the vendor. On separate dates, beginning August 22, 1924, and ending September 4, 1924, seven lots of shoes were sold to the defendant at an agreed price for each lot, the whole amounting to $3,662, with credits of $1,200 on August 2i and $2,079.20 on September 4, leaving a balance of $382.80. The answer, in addition to a general denial and defense of payment, alleges delivery by the defendant and acceptance by the plaintiff's assignor of a check in the sum of $2,079.20 in full satisfaction and accord of the claims set forth in the plaintiff's declaration.
Benoit was a shoe jobber in Haverhill. His general manager, one Goodwin, had sold the shoes to the defendant at Benoit's place of business from samples there shown. The shoes were received by the defendant at the times stated in the declaration. The defendant testified that many pairs of shoes introduced at the trial as part of the shipments showed defects in appearance, shape and workmanship. Goodwin, testifying for the plaintiff, said that these conditions were consistent with the price paid for these shoes because they were ‘Inexpensive shoes,’ that they were not defective, and that the defendant made no complaint before mailing the check on September 4, 1924, when the defendant sent a letter to Benoit in the following language:
Accompanying this letter was the defendant's check for $2,079.20, on which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallin v. Smolensky
...instrument under seal, citing Harriman v. Harriman, 12 Gray 341;Specialty Glass Co. v. Daley, 172 Mass. 460, 52 N.E. 633;Moss v. Goldstein, 254 Mass. 334, 150 N.E. 91, and similar cases. The first question is whether Wallin as administrator of his wife's estate agreed upon good consideratio......
-
Shumaker v. Lucerne-In-Maine Cmty. Ass'n
...Tread Co. v. Standard Auto Supply Co., 216 Mass. 204, 103 N. E. 695, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 949; Moss v. Goldstein, 254 Mass. 334, 336, 337, 150 N. E. 91;MacDonald v. Kavanaugh, 259 Mass. 439, 444, 445, 156 N. E. 740;Puritan Wool Co. v. Winsted Hosiery Co., 263 Mass. 467,......
-
Bascombe v. Inferrera
...Glass Co. v. Daley, 172 Mass. 460, 52 N. E. 633;Barnett v. Rosen, 235 Mass. 244, 248, 126 N. E. 386, and cases cited. Moss v. Goldstein, 254 Mass. 334, 150 N. E. 91. As the exception to the failure to give the first request for the reasons stated must be sustained, the other exceptions need......
-
Caragulian v. Rudd
...only consideration was the payment of part of a sum undeniably due. Barnett v. Rosen, 235 Mass. 244, 248, 126 N. E. 386;Moss v. Goldstein, 254 Mass. 334, 150 N. E. 91;Bascombe v. Inferrera, 271 Mass. 296, 301, 302, 171 N. E. 435;Shumaker v. Lucerne-In-Maine Community Association, 275 Mass. ......