TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Howe v. Hardy

Henry C. Howe & another v. Augustus Hardy

Howe v. Hardy, 106 Mass. 329 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1871
Citations
106 Mass. 329
Headnotes
In an action between a manufacturer of window frames and a dealer in them, on an issue whether the former should pay freight on frames sold and delivered by him to the latter, evidence of a usage between manufacturers and dealers, in the place where the goods were made and sold, that the manufacturers should pay the freight, is admissible.
Summary
Contract for a balance of the price of window frames made by the plaintiffs and sold and delivered by them to the defendant, who filed a declaration in set-off for money paid to the use of the plaintiffs. At the trial in the superior court, before Wilkinson, J., without a jury, it appeared that the plaintiffs were manufacturers of window frames in Lowell, and the defendant a dealer in them in Boston, and a question was raised whether the plaintiffs or the defendant should pay the freight on the frames. The plaintiffs having testified that it was not their usage to pay freight, the defendant, against the plaintiffs’ objection, was allowed to offer evidence “ of a general usage at Lowell, where the frames were made and sold, among manufacturers and dealers, for the manu facturera to pay the freight.” The judge found for the defend ant, and the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court.

The usage as to the payment of freight was competent, for it related to what the vendor was to do in respect to the delivery of the goods in the absence of an express stipulation, Putnam v. Tillotson, 13 Met. 517 .

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1883–1884: 11899–1900: 21911–1912: 11919–1920: 118832026peak 1899 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Smith Co. v. Moscahlades193 A.D. 126 (1920)
  2. Florence Machine Co. v. Daggett135 Mass. 582 (1883)
  3. Waddell v. Wallace1911 OK 484, 121 P. 245
  4. Mathias Planing Mill Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.20 Ohio C.C. 287 (Oh. Circ. Ct. 1900)
  5. Mathias Planing Mill Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 54 (Oh. Circ. Ct. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Smith Co. v. Moscahlades193 A.D. 126 (1920)
  2. Waddell v. Wallace1911 OK 484, 121 P. 245
  3. Mathias Planing Mill Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.11 Ohio Cir. Dec. 54 (Oh. Circ. Ct. 1900)
  4. Mathias Planing Mill Co. v. L. P. Hazen & Co.20 Ohio C.C. 287 (Oh. Circ. Ct. 1900)
  5. Florence Machine Co. v. Daggett135 Mass. 582 (1883)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list