¶1The instruction to the jury was correct. The fact that the plaintiffs originally charged the goods to the agent, with whom they dealt, did not preclude them from resorting to the principal, when afterwards discovered. The statement, in their petition in bankruptcy against the agent, that he owed them this debt, was not conclusive against their right to maintain this action which they had already brought against the principal, and was rightly submitted to the jury, with all the evidence in the case. Raymond v. Crown & Eagle Mills, 2 Met 319. Exceptions overruled.
124 Mass. 347
Gardner v. Bean
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided April 2, 1878
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1878-04-02
<p>In an action against a married woman, for goods sold and delivered, there vras evi dense that the goods were originally charged to her husband, and credit given to him; that he was acting as agent for her; and that a short time after the action was commenced against her, the plaintiff signed a petition in bankruptcy against him, stating that this same debt was due from him. The judge ruled that the facts that the plaintiff originally gave credit to the husband, and also signed and swore to the petition in bankruptcy, were strong evidence that the debt was due from him and not from the defendant; but that these facts were not conclusive against the plaintiff, but were to be considered by the jury in connection with the other evidence in the case. Held, that the defendant had no ground of exception to the instruction.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1878-04-02
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 1953
12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →