Seavey v. Potter
121 Mass. 297, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 360
Opinion
The claim of the plaintiff to rescind the sale is wholly inconsistent with his proof in bankruptcy of a promissory note taken for the price of the goods. Ormsby v. Dearborn, 116 Mass. 386. See also Bassett v. Brown, 105 Mass. 551. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Seavey v. Potter, 121 Mass. 297, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 360 (Mass. 1876).
121 Mass. 297 (Seavey v. Potter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In re Kenyon
156 F. 863 (S.D. Ohio, 1907)
Whitney v. Abbott
77 N.E. 524 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Standard Varnish Works v. Haydock
143 F. 318 (Sixth Circuit, 1906)
In re Hildebrant
120 F. 992 (N.D. New York, 1903)
Droege v. Ahrens & Ott Manufacturing Co.
57 N.E. 747 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Miller v. Hyde
25 L.R.A. 42 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1894)
Raphael v. Reinstein
28 N.E. 141 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Stevens v. Pierce
23 N.E. 1006 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)