Tozier v. Crafts
| Decision Date | 08 January 1878 |
| Citation | 123 Mass. 480 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | John B. Tozier & another v. Renney Crafts |
Argued September 26, 1877
Hampden. Contract for goods sold and delivered. Answer: 1. A general denial; 2. That the goods were sold to Howard Crafts and Judson Crafts, doing business under the firm name of Crafts Brothers; and that they paid for the same by their notes.
Trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
W. D Vietts testified, for the plaintiffs, that he was their agent in selling liquors; that a few days before October 10, 1873 he saw the defendant at Holyoke, and the defendant told him that he had bought out a billiard-room, and was going to put his brothers in to run the place; that they would want some liquors, and he wished some might be sent; that he then ordered certain liquors, being the goods in question, and directed them to be sent to him; that the brothers did in fact run the place, and appeared to do all the business of the saloon; that on October 10, 1873, he saw one of the defendant's brothers at Hartford, who told him that the defendant had given his brothers authority to act as his agents in purchasing stock in the business, and asked him to hurry up the goods ordered previously by the defendant; that the brother also said he wished the witness would write to his principals in New York at once, for the goods; that the witness wrote at the brother's request. The letter was produced, and it contained an order for liquors, (which the witness testified were the same ordered by the defendant,) and named the defendant as the person to whom the liquors were to be sent. There was no evidence that the defendant or either of his brothers read the letter, or heard it read before it was sent, nor was there any evidence to show that the defendant or either of his brothers saw the letter after it was written, except that it was in the presence of the brother requesting it.
The defendant objected to the admission of the letter, and of the conversation with the defendant's brother, but the letter and the testimony in regard to the conversation were admitted.
Vietts also testified that on November 29, 1873, he visited the saloon in Holyoke, and saw the defendant's brothers, and asked for a settlement of the bill; that one of the brothers wrote a promissory note, for part of the amount due, payable in ten days, signed it "Crafts Brothers," and handed it to the witness. For the purpose of showing fraud in the giving of the note, and to show that this note and another subsequently given did not constitute payment of the bill, Vietts was asked to state what was said when the first note was given, and, against the defendant's objection, was allowed to state that, on receiving the note, he asked why it was signed in that way, and was told by one of the brothers that the defendant was one of the firm of Crafts Brothers. Vietts also testified that attempts had been made to collect the note; that it had been put in a bank for collection and had been protested; and that on December 26, 1873, another note, signed "Crafts Brothers," was given for the amount of the first note and the balance of the bill, payable on demand. The defendant gave the plaintiffs notice to produce the notes at the trial, and they were produced and put into the case without objection. There was no evidence that either note had been returned to Crafts Brothers or to the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant lived a mile and a half from the saloon, and did not personally attend to it; and it was conceded that he was not in fact a member of the firm of Crafts Brothers. The defendant also put in evidence tending to show that he never ordered the goods, never directed that they should be charged to him, never had them, and did not agree to pay for them; and that one of his brothers was the owner of the stock in trade at the saloon. He also denied giving authority to his brothers to purchase goods on his credit.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the fail amount of their bill; and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clough v. Holden
...257. Even if plaintiff was entitled to a surrender of the original notes and collateral, a delivery at the trial was sufficient. Tozier v. Crafts, 123 Mass. 480. (8) When plaintiff invokes the aid of a court to obtain the benefit of a contract founded on fraud he cannot obtain standing ther......
-
Ford v. Linehan
...a party to the contract, and whether or not Denis A. Linehan was his authorized agent. Reed v. Railroad Co., 120 Mass. 43, 47; Tozier v. Crafts, 123 Mass. 480. It was question for the jury to say what was the intention of defendant. The question here is whether there is any evidence which c......
-
Lowell Trust Co. v. Wolff
...attached by his creditors and filed a married woman's certificate that she authorized him to carry on the business for her. Tozier v. Crafts, 123 Mass. 480;Nowell v. Chipman, 170 Mass. 340, 49 N. E. 631. She admits that the business was hers during the year following November 18, 1905, but ......
-
Bradlee v. Warren Five Cents Savings Bank
... ... to who constituted the firm who made the notes, a surrender ... of the notes at the trial is seasonable. Tozier v ... Crafts, 123 Mass. 480. But it cannot be permitted ... that, in an action where the plaintiff sues the defendant as ... indorser on notes ... ...