Osgood v. Stevenson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Osgood v. Stevenson

9 N.E. 825, 143 Mass. 399, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 314

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 10, 1887·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Field, J.

If the contract, after the defendant signed and delivered it, was materially altered without his authority, the contract thus altered was not made by the defendant. The insertion of the word “cloth” and of the figures “$6.25” was plainly a material alteration. The plaintiffs declare upon a contract which the jury have found to have been materially altered without the defendant’s consent, and it is therefore not the defendant’s contract.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Field, J.

If the contract, after the defendant signed and delivered it, was materially altered without his authority, the contract thus altered was not made by the defendant. The insertion of the word “cloth” and of the figures “$6.25” was plainly a material alteration. The plaintiffs declare upon a contract which the jury have found to have been materially altered without the defendant’s consent, and it is therefore not the defendant’s contract.

Exceptions overruled.

Osgood v. Stevenson, 9 N.E. 825, 143 Mass. 399, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 314 (Mass. 1887).

Pincite

9 N.E. 825 (Osgood v. Stevenson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related