Marble v. Moore

102 Mass. 443
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1869·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

Under the instructions given them, the jury must have found that there was an absolute, and not a conditional sale of the animal by the defendant to Plympton. There is nothing in the bill of exceptions to show that such a finding was not authorized by the evidence. On the contrary,, we think the finding is in conformity with the legal effect of the contract as stated. Therefore, even if the judge ought to have stated the legal effect of the contract, yet, as the verdict is in accordance with what the ruling should have been, there is no ground of exception. Ricker v. Cutter, 8 Gray, 248.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Marble v. Moore, 102 Mass. 443 (Mass. 1869).

102 Mass. 443 (Marble v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boston Gas Co. v. Department of Public Utilities
324 N.E.2d 372 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1975)
Rogers v. Abbot
92 N.E. 472 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Mitchell v. Le Clair
43 N.E. 117 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
Bertelson v. Bower
81 Ind. 512 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Shelton v. Franklin
68 Ill. 333 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1873)