Mauger v. Crosby
117 Mass. 330, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 230
Opinion
Independently of the two letters admitted under objection, there was evidence from which it would have been competent for the jury to find that the plaintiff accepted the proposition of Crosby & Co., as stated in their letter inclosing the notes in suit; and that he sent the machine to them in accordance therewith. If so, the transaction was complete, and the plaintiff became entitled to hold and collect the notes. By the terms of the report there must therefore be
' Judgment for the ‘¡plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mauger v. Crosby, 117 Mass. 330, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 230 (Mass. 1875).
117 Mass. 330 (Mauger v. Crosby) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Automatic Time Table Advertising Co. v. Automatic Time Table Co.
94 N.E. 462 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)