Yaeger Milling Co. v. Brown

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Yaeger Milling Co. v. Brown

128 Mass. 171, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 32

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 19, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 Mass. 171 (Yaeger Milling Co. v. Brown) 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.

Bluebook

Yaeger Milling Co. v. Brown, 128 Mass. 171, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 32 (Mass. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Lord, J.

The only question for trial in the court below was whether the plaintiff sold, and the defendants bought, the flour replevied, or whether the plaintiff as consignor sent the flour to the defendants, who received it as consignees. From the plaintiff’s letter it appears that the flour was sent to the defendants for them to exercise their election whether to purchase or to receive it on consignment. That was a fact to be determined by the presiding judge upon the evidence. The evidence was conflicting. The defendant Brown was permitted to testify that he elected to receive it as purchaser, and this evidence was objected to; and the competency of that evidence is the only question raised on this bill of exceptions. Its competency is too plain for discussion. There was no question of mental processes of the defendant, but simply a question of fact whether he did or did not at the time exercise his election, and accept the flour as purchaser. The finding of the presiding judge is conclusive of the fact; and that finding, having been made upon competent testimony, must stand. Exceptions overruled.

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

Lord, J.

The only question for trial in the court below was whether the plaintiff sold, and the defendants bought, the flour replevied, or whether the plaintiff as consignor sent the flour to the defendants, who received it as consignees. From the plaintiff’s letter it appears that the flour was sent to the defendants for them to exercise their election whether to purchase or to receive it on consignment. That was a fact to be determined by the presiding judge upon the evidence. The evidence was conflicting. The defendant Brown was permitted to testify that he elected to receive it as purchaser, and this evidence was objected to; and the competency of that evidence is the only question raised on this bill of exceptions. Its competency is too plain for discussion. There was no question of mental processes of the defendant, but simply a question of fact whether he did or did not at the time exercise his election, and accept the flour as purchaser. The finding of the presiding judge is conclusive of the fact; and that finding, having been made upon competent testimony, must stand. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 Mass. 171, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yaeger-milling-co-v-brown-mass-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack