Shaw v. Hall
| Decision Date | 09 January 1883 |
| Citation | 134 Mass. 103 |
| Parties | John Shaw, 2d, v. Horace D. Hall |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 8, 1882
Essex. Contract to recover the price of a horse alleged to have been purchased by the defendant through one Golden. Trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., who ruled, upon the plaintiff's evidence, tat the jury would not be authorized in finding that Golden had any original authority to buy the horse for the defendant, or that the defendant had so far ratified any unauthorized act as to be bound thereby and directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions. The nature of the evidence appears in the opinion.
Judgment on the verdict.
S. B Ives, Jr. & R. E. Harmon, for the plaintiff.
B. F Hayes, for the defendant.
Devens, J. C. Allen, Colburn & Holmes, JJ., absent.
At the trial, there was testimony that one Golden, assuming to act as agent for the defendant, had purchased the horse of the plaintiff; but the learned judge who presided was of opinion that there was no evidence of the authority of Golden thus to act, and therefore nothing to be submitted to the jury. We are to consider, therefore, not the weight of the evidence, but whether any evidence appeared which would have justified the finding that such authority existed.
The horse was in the possession of the defendant, and had been so for ten days, when Golden made the trade testified to by the plaintiff, while the mare of the defendant, which was to form a part of the consideration of the trade, was in that of Golden. On the morning of the day of the alleged trade, which was Monday, January 17, 1881, the horse was severely injured while being driven by the defendant.
The evidence that Golden had before this time bought horses for the defendant, and his statement that, whenever the defendant desired a horse, he, Golden, bought it for him, did not show any general agency on his part, and was entirely consistent with the defendant's claim that any trade made by Golden was subject to his approval. It was not, therefore, important upon the disputed question of Golden's agency to make on behalf of the defendant an unconditional trade.
The conduct of the defendant after the alleged trade is deemed by the plaintiff to afford evidence that he had authorized an unconditional trade, as the plaintiff testified it had been made by Golden. He wrote a letter, purporting to be written upon the same day and to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
East Hampton Bank & Trust Co. v. Collins
...in the notices, would not constitute a holding out of Cressey as an agent to receive payment of bills of exchange generally. Shaw v. Hall, 134 Mass. 103, 104, 105;Burnham v. Wilson, 207 Mass. 378, 380, 93 N. E. 704;Wheeler v. Guild, 20 Pick. 545,32 Am. Dec. 231;Bacon v. Pomeroy, 118 Mich. 1......
-
Ayer v. R.w. Bell Mfg. Co.
...promise. Even if they had disbelieved Breyfogle's testimony, or part of it, they could not find a fact without some evidence. Shaw v. Hall, 134 Mass. 103. words relied upon by the plaintiffs as making a warranty were rightly ruled to be merely seller's commendation. Kimball v. Bangs, 144 Ma......
-
Fowler v. Parsons
...of a claim for repayment of duties. Delano v. Curtis, 7 Allen, 470; Powell v. Olds, 9 Ala. 861; Thompson v. Rose, ubi supra; Shaw v. Hall, 134 Mass. 103. See Drake Curtis, 1 Cush. 395, at page 414; Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125. The question of estoppel does not arise in this case. There is......
-
Jefferds v. Alvord
...reject that part of her testimony which was favorable to herself. Ayer v. Manufacturing Co., 147 Mass. 46, 54, 16 N.E. 754; Shaw v. Hall, 134 Mass. 103, 105, 106. The might have found that fertilizers were used on the defendant's farm, and might have inferred that they were those, or a part......