Richmond Manuf'g Co. v. Starks
This text of 20 F. Cas. 747 (Richmond Manuf'g Co. v. Starks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The court are decidedly of opinion, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover. The conduct of the plaintiffs amounted to a full ratification of the sales by the defendants. It was their duty, upon receiving the letter and account of [748]*748sales, to have expressed their dissatisfaction, within a reasonable time. So far from so doing, they have repeatedly written since, without the slightest complaint, and drawn for the whole balance. This is a complete acquiescence in the acts of the defendants. It amounts to a virtual adoption of the sale. A subsequent confirmation is equivalent to an original authority. If a merchant neglects, after a reasonable time, to object to an account current, he is deemed to acquiesce in it; and it is treated as an account stated. See Tickel v. Short, 2 Ves. Sr. 239; Willis v. Jernegan, 2 Atk. 251. Judgment for the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
20 F. Cas. 747, 4 Mason C.C. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-manufg-co-v-starks-circtdri-1826.