Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

124 Me. 449

Kelley v. Thurlough

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided September 9, 1925

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1925-09-09

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-09-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2004

9 state decisions

30192519301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 →

¶1An action of assumpsit to recover for merchandise sold and delivered. The *450defendant set up under a brief statement as a special matter of defense, not a right of set off, but an agreement to apply the amount due the account upon a- note given the- defendant by the plaintiff. A jury found for the plaintiff. It comes before this court on a motion for a new trial on the usual grounds.

Richard E. Harvey, for plaintiff.Cook, Hutchinson & Pierce, and Edward T. Atwood, for defendant.

¶2The amount and delivery of the merchandise was not in dispute. A question was raised as to the price agreed to be paid per gallon for gasoline.

¶3The defendant testified, and contends that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence is, that he was authorized to credit the amount of the bill upon a certain promissory note given to him by the plaintiff in part payment for some real estate.

¶4The plaintiff denied such an agreement and says the defendant had no such authority and did not so credit the goods according to his own testimony.

¶5No set off being pleaded and having set up an, agreement to credit the debt of defendant on plaintiff’s note, 'the burden was on the defendant to prove the agreement and the application. The jury must have believed the testimony of the plaintiff as to the price to be paid, and either that there was no agreement to credit the merchandise on the note or that no application had ever been made.

¶6We cannot say that, having seen and heard the witnesses, the jury were clearly wrong in their conclusions. Motion overruled.

/124/me/449 · .json · Public domain