TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Acorn Silk Co. v. Herscovitz

Acorn Silk Company v. Charles Herscovitz & another

Acorn Silk Co. v. Herscovitz, 146 N.E. 35 (Mass. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 10, 1925
Judges
Braley
Citations
146 N.E. 35250 Mass. 5531925 Mass. LEXIS 932

Opinion of the Court — Braley

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

Braley, J.

This is an action of contract to recover the price of an invoice of silk dress goods. The parties are described as doing business in Boston in this Commonwealth, and their rights are to be determined by our sales act, G. L. c. 106. The goods were sold under the trade name of ‘ ‘ Asco ” silk and, after having kept or used nearly one half of the shipment, the defendants claimed that the colors ran, and endeavored to rescind by a tender of the remainder of the invoice which was refused. It was further claimed that the plaintiff’s agent, when the sale was negotiated by sample, “informed defendants that the word ‘Asco’ was a trade mark of the plaintiff and indicated that the . . . Company guaranteed the goods so sold as fast colors.” The contract however, which was in writing, contains no express warranty. It cannot be changed by paroi evidence to cover the alleged representations. Boston Consolidated Gas Co. v. Folsom, *555 237 Mass. 565, 568 . And by force of the statute, § 17, cl. 4, there is no implied warranty entitling the defendants to damages under their answer in recoupment. Stoehrer & Pratt Dodgem Corp. v. Greenburg, ante, 550.

The question, whether the contract was entire and the defendants therefore by keeping or using part of the goods cannot rescind and are liable for the purchase price, is immaterial. See Shohfi v. Rice, 241 Mass. 211 .

The verdict for the plaintiff, the amount of which, if it is entitled to recover, is not disputed, was ordered rightly, and the entry must be Judgment on the verdict.

How later courts describe this case

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

1928: 11930: 21931: 11932: 119282026peak 1930 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Iron Fireman Coal Stoker Co. v. Brown234 N.W. 685 (Minn. 1931)
  2. Whitty Manufacturing Co. v. Clark180 N.E. 315 (Mass. 1932)
  3. Raymond Syndicate, Inc. v. American Radio & Research Corp.160 N.E. 821 (Mass. 1928)
  4. Snelling v. Dine170 N.E. 403 (Mass. 1930)
  5. Barry v. Cronin272 Mass. 477 (1930)

Most recent

  1. Whitty Manufacturing Co. v. Clark180 N.E. 315 (Mass. 1932)
  2. Iron Fireman Coal Stoker Co. v. Brown234 N.W. 685 (Minn. 1931)
  3. Barry v. Cronin272 Mass. 477 (1930)
  4. Snelling v. Dine170 N.E. 403 (Mass. 1930)
  5. Raymond Syndicate, Inc. v. American Radio & Research Corp.160 N.E. 821 (Mass. 1928)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Boston Consol. Gas Co. v. Folsom, 130 N.E. 197 (Mass. 1921) 19
Shohfi v. Rice, 241 Mass. 211 (1922) 10

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