Bromfield v. Little

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bromfield v. Little

1 Super. Ct. Jud. 108

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1764

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Super. Ct. Jud. 108 (Bromfield v. Little) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bromfield v. Little, 1 Super. Ct. Jud. 108 (Mass. 1764).

Pincite

Opinion

Just. Oliver.

Whether this is a reasonable Cut tom must first be considered. I think it is. I think, too, it appears to be a Custom.

Just. Cushing.

This Case is very different from what it is at Home; ’tis there the universal Usage, which makes it the Supposition of every Party at first; and, as a Person purchasing Goods without any special Promise is supposed to promise the Pay[109]*109ment of the Customary Price, so he is supposed to engage to pay the customary Allowance for Forbearance; but here, however reasonable it may be, it is yet otherwise, nor is it implied in the Contract.

Ch. Justice.

This Case is of much Importance to the Community. ’Tis agreeable to natural Equity that Interest should be allowed; and I am glad it is growing into a Custom; but the Rule is that both Parties ought at the Time of contracting to understand it so, and I doubt whether it is so general as that it can be supposed in this Case.

The Jury did not allow Interest.

N. B. The Superiour Court now altered, and the Sitting, instead of being the third Tuesday of February and third Tuesday of August, is the second Tuesday in March and last Tuesday in August. March 12, A. D. 1765. (¹)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Just. Oliver.

Whether this is a reasonable Cut tom must first be considered. I think it is. I think, too, it appears to be a Custom.

Just. Cushing.

This Case is very different from what it is at Home; ’tis there the universal Usage, which makes it the Supposition of every Party at first; and, as a Person purchasing Goods without any special Promise is supposed to promise the Pay[109]*109ment of the Customary Price, so he is supposed to engage to pay the customary Allowance for Forbearance; but here, however reasonable it may be, it is yet otherwise, nor is it implied in the Contract.

Ch. Justice.

This Case is of much Importance to the Community. ’Tis agreeable to natural Equity that Interest should be allowed; and I am glad it is growing into a Custom; but the Rule is that both Parties ought at the Time of contracting to understand it so, and I doubt whether it is so general as that it can be supposed in this Case.

The Jury did not allow Interest.

N. B. The Superiour Court now altered, and the Sitting, instead of being the third Tuesday of February and third Tuesday of August, is the second Tuesday in March and last Tuesday in August. March 12, A. D. 1765. (¹)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Super. Ct. Jud. 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bromfield-v-little-mass-1764.