Cheney Bigelow Wire Works v. Sorrell

8 N.E. 332, 142 Mass. 442, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 341
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 21, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 8 N.E. 332 (Cheney Bigelow Wire Works v. Sorrell) 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
Cheney Bigelow Wire Works v. Sorrell, 8 N.E. 332, 142 Mass. 442, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 341 (Mass. 1886).

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

This is an action to recover the price of a “counter rail.” The plaintiff put in evidence a postal card signed by the defendants, of which the substance is as follows: “ Please send us pice of counter screen like draft.” Upon this card was a draft of a counter screen with the measurements thereof. The court rightly ruled that this order was unmeaning and unintelligible, and that it could not be construed as an order for a piece of counter railing. It presents a case of incurable uncertainty; and the court properly refused to submit it to the jury to determine whether the letters “ pice ” meant “ piece ” or “price.” These letters do not mean anything, and neither the court nor the jury can construe them as meaning “ piece.”

There was no valid written order; and the question whether the defendants intended to order a piece of counter rail, and, either expressly or by implication, promised to pay for it, was submitted to the jury with instructions of which the plaintiff does not complain, and which were sufficiently favorable to it.

Plaintiff’s exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Thall v. Berkowitz
265 Mass. 335 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Read v. McKeague
252 Mass. 162 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Knowles v. Griswold
252 Mass. 172 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Wellington v. Rugg
243 Mass. 30 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Noble v. Mead-Morrison Manufacturing Co.
129 N.E. 669 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Elks v. . Insurance Co
75 S.E. 808 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Elks v. North State Insurance
159 N.C. 619 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Brighton Packing Co. v. Butchers' Slaughtering & Melting Ass'n
97 N.E. 780 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Manufacturing Company v. . Telegraph Company
67 S.E. 329 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Clark Manufacturing Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
152 N.C. 157 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Tanning Co. v. . Telegraph Co.
55 S.E. 777 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
Jesse French Piano & Organ Co. v. Wallace
84 Mo. App. 378 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 N.E. 332, 142 Mass. 442, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheney-bigelow-wire-works-v-sorrell-mass-1886.