Jones v. Hoey

128 Mass. 585, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 159
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 29, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 128 Mass. 585 (Jones 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
Jones v. Hoey, 128 Mass. 585, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 159 (Mass. 1880).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The instruction given was correct. If the tobacco was sold by sample and by weight, without more' specific agreement, evidence of a general usage was admissible to show that the weight was to be computed as previously ascertained at the time of packing and marked on the cases, and not by the actual weight at the time of the sale. Bottomley v. Forbes, 6 Scott, 866; S. C. 5 Bing. N. C. 121. Barry v. Bennett, 7 Met. 354. Miller v. Stevens, 100 Mass. 518. The Gen. Sts. c. 51, § 17, cited for the defendant, providing that sales of goods by the hundredweight shall be construed to mean by the net weight, or one hundred pounds, and not by the gross weight, or [587]*587one hundred and twelve pounds, contain nothing inconsistent with this.

Nothwithstanding the dictum in Boardman v. Spooner, 13 Allen, 353, 359, there can be no doubt, at the present day, that the circumstance that but one witness testifies to a usage is important only as bearing upon the credibility and satisfactoriness of his testimony in point of fact, and .does not affect its competency or its sufficiency as matter of law. Parrott v. Thacher, 9 Pick. 426. Vail v. Rice, 1 Selden, 155. Partridge v. Forsyth, 29 Ala. 200. Robinson v. United States, 13 Wall. 363.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Baccari v. B. Perini & Sons, Inc.
199 N.E. 912 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
McComb v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
294 P. 81 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Weil & Gatling v. Caddel & Jacobs
1929 OK 108 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Barrie v. Quinby
206 Mass. 259 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
McDonough v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
78 N.E. 141 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Lindeman
143 F. 946 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)
Penland v. Ingle.
50 S.E. 850 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Gehl v. Milwaukee Produce Co.
81 N.W. 666 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1900)
Hutchins v. Webster
43 N.E. 186 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
Wootters v. Kauffman
3 S.W. 465 (Texas Supreme Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 Mass. 585, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-hoey-mass-1880.