Frank v. Hoey

128 Mass. 263, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 56
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 28, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 128 Mass. 263 (Frank v. Hoey) 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
Frank v. Hoey, 128 Mass. 263, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 56 (Mass. 1880).

Opinion

Ames, J.

If, as the plaintiff contended, the negotiations between his agent and the defendant were subject to his approval, they did not amount to a sale or a binding contract of sale, until that approval had been given. It would be the case of an order for goods which the vendor might accept or reject as he pleased. The prices, quantities, and qualities might be designated in the order, and all that remained to be done on the vendor’s part might be (if he concluded to make the sale) to select the goods from his general stock and in some mode to set them apart; but until this should be done, there would be no sale of those specific goods. Sortwell v. Hughes, 1 Curtis, 244. In such a case, unless some special agreement to the contrary appeared, delivery to the carrier in Boston would be delivery to the purchaser. Orcutt v. Nelson, 1 Gray, 586. Finch v. Mansfield, 97 Mass. 89. Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass. 253. Clough v. Whitcomb, 105 Mass. 482. Suit v. Woodhall, 113 Mass. 391.

The jury found the facts to be as the plaintiff contended, and that the sale was made in Boston. The evidence would justify such a verdict, and the instructions given by the court were correct. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

State v. Delamater
104 N.W. 537 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1905)
Merriweather v. State
86 S.W. 332 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1905)
State v. Intoxicating Liquors
57 A. 798 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1904)
Dr. A. P. Sawyer Medicine Co. v. Johnson
178 Mass. 374 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
John F. Betz & Son v. McMorrow
52 N.E. 1069 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Smith
28 N.E. 1130 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Herron v. State
51 Ark. 133 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1888)
Berger v. State
50 Ark. 20 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1887)
Sarbecker v. State
26 N.W. 541 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1886)
United States v. Cline
26 F. 515 (W.D. North Carolina, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 Mass. 263, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-hoey-mass-1880.