Dunbar v. Boston & Providence Railroad
This text of 110 Mass. 26 (Dunbar v. Boston & Providence Railroad) 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.
Opinion
The plaintiff sold the gin and whiskey which are the subject of this action to a person calling himself John H. Young of Providence, and delivered them to the defendants to be carried to the same person in Providence by the same name. As he was the only person in Providence who bore that, name, there was no other individual to whom the defendants could deliver the property. A delivery to him would be a performance of the contract. The fact that he was known to the delivery clerk as John F. Gorman, made it necessary for him to conceal from the clerk the fictitious name, and to pretend that he was acting as an agent or servant of John H. Young. He was thus enabled to obtain the property, but by means of this deceit, the property reached the person to whom the plaintiff sold and consigned it. Thus the contract of the defendants was performed in its spirit and letter, and the plaintiff has no cause of action against them. Judgment for the defendants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
110 Mass. 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunbar-v-boston-providence-railroad-mass-1872.