Sears v. Wright

24 Me. 278
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 15, 1844
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 24 Me. 278 (Sears v. Wright) 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.

Bluebook
Sears v. Wright, 24 Me. 278 (Me. 1844).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Whitman C. J.

The note in suit was payable, “from the avails of the logs bought of Martin Mower, when there is a sale made.” The logs referred to, were sold to the defendant for $6496,02; and many years had elapsed after the giving of the note, before the suit was commenced. It is contended, that the logs could not be sold; and that, on being manufactured into boards, there was a total loss to the owners; and it was offered to be proved, that it was the understanding of the parties, if such should turn out to be the case, that the note was not to be paid. We think the Judge at the trial did right in not permitting such a defence to be set up, as it would have been manifestly opposed to the spirit and meaning of the written contract, into which the defendant had entered. By the terms of that contract it could not be inferred, that the plaintiff had consented to subject himself to any such contingency. His agreement in terms was to wait till the logs could be sold. Thus the defendants had a duty to perform. They were bound to sell the logs and to do it within a reasonable time. A reasonable time for such purpose, had long since elapsed. To pretend that a quantity of logs, for which the defendant had been contented to pay $6496,02, could not be sold for the amount, ($233,91, and interest) due to the plaintiff, cannot be deemed otherwise than preposterous. Judgment must be entered upon the default.

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

Related

Ewell v. Landing
85 A.2d 475 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1963)
Lee and Krizman, D/B/A v. Bossung
138 N.E.2d 913 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1957)
Aldrich v. Aldrich
260 Ill. App. 333 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1931)
Wallace v. Carlin
267 P. 596 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Kuhn v. Simmons
139 A. 474 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1927)
Watchorn v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation
5 F.2d 636 (Eighth Circuit, 1925)
McGary v. Campbell
245 S.W. 106 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Dille v. Longwell
188 Iowa 606 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Allen v. Estate of Allen
217 Ill. App. 260 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1920)
Rosenheim v. Howze
176 P. 456 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Johnson v. Geddes
161 P. 910 (Utah Supreme Court, 1916)
Hughes v. McEwen
72 So. 848 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1916)
Smead v. Lampher
86 A. 1005 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1913)
Bush v. Merrill
156 S.W. 606 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Rosenberg v. F. J. Lewis Manufacturing Co.
171 Ill. App. 454 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1912)
Seattle Automobile Co. v. Stimson
120 P. 73 (Washington Supreme Court, 1912)
Rumsey v. Livers
77 A. 295 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1910)
Earle v. Sunnyside Land Co.
88 P. 920 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Busby v. Century Gold Mining Co.
75 P. 725 (Utah Supreme Court, 1904)
Noland v. Bull
33 P. 983 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Me. 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sears-v-wright-me-1844.