Merrill v. Hagopian
This text of 126 A. 922 (Merrill v. Hagopian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $313.56 for various items of blacksmithing and wood working supplies sold and delivered to the defendant, being a miscellaneous lot of articles that had passed through a fire. The plaintiff claimed a specific contract for the entire lot at an agreed reduced price. The defendant contended that the contract covered certain machinery not delivered, with the exception of one piece, and did not cover the goods delivered and charged for. The nature and scope of the contract of sale were therefore the points at issue.
Considering the credible evidence of the plaintiff corroborated by disinterested witnesses, the inconsistency between defendant’s brief statement of defense and the evidence in defense, and the unconvincing nature of the defendant’s testimony when viewed in the light of his conduct, we think the verdict was amply warranted. Motion overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
126 A. 922, 124 Me. 436, 1924 Me. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrill-v-hagopian-me-1924.