Peck v. Cochran

24 Mass. 34

• Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
• Decided: October 3, 1828
• Status: Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It appears clearly that there was no contract between the parties. The offer to pay at a future day would have been an acceptance, had the plaintiffs’ agent acceded to it; but he did not, and said he should return the bill.¹ The circumstance of the defendant’s having funds at the time of the presentment is immaterial and the evidence of it was rightly rejected.

Nonsuit made absolute.

1 The assent of both parties is necessary to constitute an agreement. Bruce v. Pearson, 3 Johns. R. 534. See Innis v. Roane, 4 Call, 379; Tucker v. Wood, 12 Johns. R. 190. If one party does not accede to a promise as made, the other party is not bound by it. Tuttle v. Love, 7 Johns. R. 470; Eliason v. Henshaw, 4 Wheaton, 425; Bruce v. Pearson, 3 Johns. R. 534; Hazard v. New Engl. Mar. Ins. Co. 1 Sumner, 218. See Wood v. Edwards, 19 Johns. R. 205; Mactier v. Frith, 6 Wendell, 103; Coming v. Colt, 5 Wendell, 253 ; Peru v. Turner, 1 Fairfield, 185.

Whether there has been an acceptance of an offer or not, is a question for the jury. Corning v. Colt, 5 Wendell, 253.