Dunbar v. Boston & Providence Railroad

110 Mass. 26
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

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.

Bluebook
Dunbar v. Boston & Providence Railroad, 110 Mass. 26 (Mass. 1872).

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

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

Malvern Cold Storage Co. v. American Railway Express Co.
220 N.W. 322 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1928)
Kimbrough v. American Railway Express Company
270 S.W. 518 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1925)
L. Kommel & Son v. Champlain Transportation Co.
105 A. 253 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1918)
Boatsman v. Stockmen's National Bank
56 Colo. 495 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1914)
Southern Express Co. v. Ruth & Son
59 So. 538 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Singer v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.
77 N.E. 882 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Murphy v. Metropolitan National Bank
77 N.E. 693 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Meyer v. Indiana National Bank
61 N.E. 596 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1901)
Pacific Express Co. v. Hertzberg
42 S.W. 795 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1897)
Pacific Express Co. v. Shearer
37 L.R.A. 177 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1896)
Shearer v. Pacific Express Co.
43 Ill. App. 641 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1892)
Metzger v. Franklin Bank
21 N.E. 973 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
William A. Wilson & Co. v. Adams Express Co.
27 Mo. App. 360 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)
Samuel v. Cheney
135 Mass. 278 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Edmunds v. Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co.
135 Mass. 283 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 Mass. 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunbar-v-boston-providence-railroad-mass-1872.