Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Mass. 34

Peck v. Cochran

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 3, 1828

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1828-10-03

Assumpsit on an- order, dated April 1, 1821, payable at sight, drawn by the deputy postipaster general of the United States, at Washington, upon the defendant, who was postmaster at Watertown, in this State, in favor of the plaintiffs. At the trial, before Parker C. J., it appeared that the plaintiffs sent the bill for collection to S. Burt, who delivered it to J. Sawyer, with directions to call on the defendant and demand payment.

Decided 1828-10-03

Per Curiam.

¶1It appears clearly that there was no contract between the parties. The offer to pay at a future day would have been an acceptance, had the plaintiffs’ agent acceded to it; but he did not, and said he should return the bill.1 The circumstance of the defendant’s having funds at the time of the presentment is immaterial and the evidence of it was rightly rejected.

¶2Nonsuit made absolute.

¶3 The assent of both parties is necessary to constitute an agreement. Bruce v. Pearson, 3 Johns. R. 534. See Innis v. Roane, 4 Call, 379; Tucker v. Wood, 12 Johns. R. 190. If one party does not accede to a promise as made, the other party is not bound by it. Tuttle v. Love, 7 Johns. R. 470; Eliason v. Henshaw, 4 Wheaton, 425; Bruce v. Pearson, 3 Johns. R. 534; Hazard v. New Engl. Mar. Ins. Co. 1 Sumner, 218. See Wood v. Edwards, 19 Johns. R. 205; Mactier v. Frith, 6 Wendell, 103; Coming v. Colt, 5 Wendell, 253 ; Peru v. Turner, 1 Fairfield, 185.

¶4Whether there has been an acceptance of an offer or not, is a question for the jury. Corning v. Colt, 5 Wendell, 253.

/24/mass/34 · .json · Public domain