Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Mass. 114

Hill v. Green

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 9, 1826

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1826-10-09

<p>By a contract under seal, the plaintiff agreed that his son, a minor, should work for tile defendant nine months, and the defendant agreed to give him therefor certain chattels, which were delivered forthwith, but were to remain the property of the defendant until the service should be performed. The plaintiff sold the chattels to a stranger, and the boy was afterwards wrongfully turned away by the defendant, before the expiration of the term. The defendant reclaimed the chattels, and the vendee, knowing all the facts, settled the demand by paying him a sum of money. Held, that the written contract was rescinded, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on a quantum meruit for the service performed, but that neither the plaintiff, nor his vendee, could recover back the money paid to the defendant.</p>

Decided 1826-10-09

Per Curiam.

¶1The count for money had and received was not sustained by the evidence, because, if the contract was not rescinded, the property in the chattels was in the plaintiff ; his transfer to Livermore was valid; and the yielding by Livermore to the defendant’s demand, he knowing that the boy had been turned away, would give him no right of action against the plaintiff, and neither Livermore nor the plaintiff could maintain an action against the defendant for the money paid by Livermore.1

¶2The only ground on which the verdict can be supported, is, that the written contract was rescinded. The facts show that it was rescinded, and the defendant cannot now set it up again. The count upon the quantum meruit is therefore sustained.2

¶3 Judgment for the plaintiff.

¶4 See Parsons v. Gloucester Bank, 10 Pick. 533; Dickens v. Jones, 6 Yerger, 483; East India Co. v. Tritton, 3 Barn. & Cressw. 280; Goodman v. Sayers, 2 Jacobs & Walk. 263; 2 Stark. Ev. (5th Amer. ed.) 67 and n. (b); Carter v. First Eccles. Soc. in Canterbury, 3 Connect. R. 455; per Hosmer, C. J. 2 Connect. R. 673; Mowatt. v. Wright, 1 Wendell, 355.

¶5 See 1 Chitty on Pl. 118; Cranmer v. Graham, 1 Blackford, 407; Hoar v. Clute, 15 Johns. R. 224; Munroe v. Perkins, 9 Pick. 298; Linningdale v. Livingston, 10 Johns. R. 36; Dubois v. Del. Hud. Canal Co. 4 Wendell, 285; Plancké v. Colburn, 8 Bingh. 14. So where the special contract has been waived; Hayden v. Madison, 7 Greenl. 76; Newman v. M‘Gregor, 5 Ohio, R. 351 See Hayward v. Leonard, 7 Pick. 181.
/21/mass/114 · .json · Public domain