Turner v. Atwood

• Decision Date: 03 May 1878
• Citation: 124 Mass. 411
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Nathaniel W. Turner & another v. Rufus F. M. Atwood

124 Mass. 411

Nathaniel W. Turner & another v. Rufus F. M. Atwood

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

May 3, 1878

Suffolk. The writ in this case, dated March 18, 1876 described the action as tort or contract. The declaration was as follows: "And the plaintiffs say that on or about September 11, 1875, they were engaged in business as dealers in gas fixtures, chandeliers, &c., at Nos. 27 and 29 Bromfield Street, in Boston, and had a well established and large business at their said place of business. That on said day the defendant applied to them to purchase certain gas fixtures, chandeliers, &c., to be put into a restaurant at No. 19 Tremont Street in Boston, and requested the plaintiffs to do the work necessary to the hanging of the chandeliers, and to furnish all the piping and necessary parts and implements for the complete hanging and fitting of said rooms with gas fixtures, chandeliers, &c. And the defendant represented to the plaintiffs that he was a man of property, that he had a large amount of ready cash, that he owned a large amount of real estate, and that he would pay for said merchandise, and for all labor done and performed by the plaintiffs, in cash, in thirty days, after the said merchandise had been delivered, and the said labor necessary to the complete adjustment of said fixtures and chandeliers had been performed by the plaintiffs. And the plaintiffs relying upon such representations, furnished to the defendant material and labor specified in the account hereto annexed which is made a part of this declaration.

"And the plaintiffs further say that thereafter, on or about November 1, 1875, after said merchandise had been delivered and said labor had been performed, they called upon the defendant for a settlement of said account; and the defendant then and there represented that he was temporarily embarrassed by the expenditure of a large amount of money upon the premises at the said 19 Tremont Street, and that it was not convenient for him to pay said bill in cash, but that he would give to the plaintiffs a note for the amount of said bill on four months from said November 1, which note should be paid at maturity; the defendant then and there repeating, as hereinbefore set forth, that he was a man of large means; that he was owner of real estate in New York and New Jersey, and that he would pay for the merchandise delivered and the labor performed. And the plaintiffs, relying upon said representations, received from the defendant his note for the sum of five hundred and fifty-seven dollars, dated November 1, on four months, payable to the order of the plaintiffs, which note the plaintiffs continued to hold as their own property until the maturity thereof, when the defendant refused and neglected to pay the same, and has never yet paid it or any part thereof; nor has he paid for said merchandise or labor, or any part of the same. And the plaintiffs aver that the defendant, at the time of the purchase of said merchandise, was insolvent, all of which was well known to the defendant; that the defendant, for the purpose of deceiving the plaintiffs, and...