Putnam v. Glidden
| Decision Date | 16 May 1893 |
| Citation | 159 Mass. 47,34 N.E. 81 |
| Parties | PUTNAM v. GLIDDEN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Marshall, Hamblet & Burke, for appellant.
F.W Qua, for appellee.
On the agreed statement of facts in this case, the question is whether the law implies a contract on the part of the defendant to pay for the keeping of the horses. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and no inferences of fact can be drawn in his favor. Railroad Co. v. Wilder, 137 Mass. 536. It has been said that when a vendee returns or declines to receive property sold him "the vendor has his choice of either one of three methods to indemnify himself: First, he may store or retain the property for the vendee, and sue him for the entire purchase price; second, he may sell the property, acting as an agent for that purpose of the vendee, and recover the difference between the contract price and the price obtained on such resale; or, third, he may keep the property as his own, and recover the difference between the market price at the time and place of delivery and the contract price." Dustan v. McAndrew, 44 N.Y. 72, 78; Haines v. Tucker, 50 N.H. 313; Girard v. Taggartt, 5 Serg. & R. 19; Rosenbaums v. Werden, 18 Grat. 785; Holland v. Rea, 48 Mich. 218, 224, 12 N.W. 167; Cook v. Brandeis 3 Metc. (Ky.) 555; Bagley v. Findlay, 82 Ill 524. Where the vendee contends that the property is not his, and treats it as belonging to the vendor, and the vendor elects to keep it for the vendee, and sue for the entire contract price, there is no implied contract on the part of the vendee to pay the vendor the expense of keeping it. Whiting v. Sullivan, 7 Mass. 107; Earle v. Coburn, 130 Mass. 596. In such cases, when there is controversy about the title, the election of the vendor to take care of the property is often more for his own benefit, in view of the risk that the main question in dispute may be decided against him, than for the benefit of the vendee, and the attitude of the vendee is equivalent to an express prohibition of the keeping on his account and at his expense. If the vendor wishes to avoid the expense of keeping, and at the same time to avail himself of the value of the property, he may sell under an implied agency for the vendee, and sue for the balance above what he obtains after paying the reasonable expenses. In the present case the plaintiff elected to sue for the entire contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barrie v. Quimby
...been completed, and the title passed. Carter v. Willard, 19 Pick. 1;Goddard v. Binney, 115 Mass. 450, 15 Am. Rep. 112;Putnam v. Glidden, 159 Mass. 47, 34 N. E. 81,33 Am. St. Rep. 394;White v. Solomon, 164 Mass. 516, 42 N. E. 104,30 L. R. A. 537;Mitchell v. Le Clair, 165 Mass. 308, 43 N. E. ......
-
Barrie v. Quimby
... ... title passed. Carter v. Willard, 19 Pick. 1; ... Goddard v. Binney, 115 Mass. 450, 15 Am. Rep. 112; ... Putnam v. Glidden, 159 Mass. 47, 34 N.E. 81, 33 Am ... St. Rep. 394; White v. Solomon, 164 Mass. 516, 42 ... N.E. 104, 30 L. R. A. 537; Mitchell v. Le ... ...
-
Acme Food Co v. Older
...title was in the defendant. It was a mere retention of possession, not title, to secure the manufacturer's lien. Putnam v. Glidden, 159 Mass. 47, 34 N. E. 81, 33 Am. St. Rep. 394, is classed as an authority sustaining the supposed Sedgwick rule, but it does not do so. It simply says that, i......
-
Williams v. Seder
...does not change an existing tenancy if the tenant refuses to pay the increase. Earle v. Coburn, 130 Mass. 596;Putnam v. Glidden, 159 Mass. 47, 34 N.E. 81,38 Am.St.Rep. 394;Keith v. DeBussigney, 179 Mass. 255, 60 N.E. 614;Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. MacDonald, 182 Mass. 593, 66 N.E. 415;Ne......