Homer v. Baker Yacht Basin, Inc.
This text of 112 N.E. 151 (Homer v. Baker Yacht Basin, Inc.) 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
On conflicting evidence, the trial judge
On April 16, 1914, the defendant was notified that the engine was ready for shipment and was requested to send shipping instructions.' The plaintiff, receiving no reply, by his letter dated April 27 informed the defendant that he would make the ship[501]*501ment on May 4 unless notified to the contrary. The engine was shipped accordingly, but the defendant refused to receive it.
It was not in dispute that the engine was in accordance with the specifications. There was evidence to warrant a finding that it was delivered within a reasonable time after the execution of the contract; also that in making the sale the plaintiff was acting not as agent for the Sterling Engine Company but in his own behalf, and that the engine was shipped direct from the manufacturer to the defendant at the request of the plaintiff as owner.
The damages found by the judge included the plaintiff’s loss of profit and the freight charges paid by him, and we cannot say that the finding was not justified by the evidence. The rulings requested
Exceptions overruled.
Jenney, J., by whom the case was heard without a jury. He found for the plaintiff in the sum of $322.28; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
112 N.E. 151, 223 Mass. 500, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 1018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homer-v-baker-yacht-basin-inc-mass-1916.