Clark v. Nichols
107 Mass. 547
Opinion
As the contract is stated in the bill of exceptions, we think it was a contract to sell and deliver the bending-stuff and plank, and not a contract for labor in manufacturing the articles. It is not therefore like the cases of Mixer v. Howarth, 21 Pick. 205, and Spencer v. Cone, 1 Met. 283; but like Gardner v. Joy, 9 Met. 177; Lamb v. Crafts, 12 Met. 353; and Waterman v. Meigs, 4 Cush. 497 ; and was within the statute of frauds.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Clark v. Nichols, 107 Mass. 547 (Mass. 1871).
107 Mass. 547 (Clark v. Nichols) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mathey v. Louis G. Freeman Co.
1 Mass. App. Div. 167 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1936)
Golden Eagle Milling Co. v. Old Homestead Bakery
211 P. 56 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Bauscher v. Gies
125 N.W. 420 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)
James H. Rice Co. v. Penn Plate Glass Co.
117 Ill. App. 356 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Lewis v. Evans
79 N.W. 81 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1899)
Dixon v. Williamson
52 N.E. 1067 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Alfred Shrimpton & Sons, Ltd. v. Dworsky
21 N.Y.S. 461 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892)
Mighell v. Dougherty
17 L.R.A. 755 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1892)
Burrell v. Highleyman
33 Mo. App. 183 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Orman v. Hager
3 N.M. 331 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1886)
Meincke v. Falk
13 N.W. 545 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1882)
Goddard v. Binney
115 Mass. 450 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)