Paine v. Silva
This text of 50 N.E. 1126 (Paine v. Silva) 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.
Opinion
This bill of exceptions substantially repeats the case which was here after the former trial, but this time the defendant excepts. Paine v. Silva, 168 Mass. 432. The plaintiffs’ evidence was more explicit than before to conversations during the time covered by the bill, which showed that the defendant contemplated the continuous furnishing of goods to the vessel, and the charging of them to the owners, either directly or through a charge to great generals. The brief submitted for the defendant, after repeating the argument previously addressed to us, adds the suggestion that the master was owner pro hac vice under the Provincetown lay, a suggestion which is taken from the former decision, where it was made and repudiated. There is a further suggestion that the defendant’s promise, if any, was a promise to answer for the debts of the master, and therefore was not binding because not in writing. But the ground on which the plaintiff was allowed to go to the jury was that there was evidence that the defendant made himself a debtor for the goods. There is nothing else worth mentioning.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
50 N.E. 1126, 171 Mass. 276, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paine-v-silva-mass-1898.