Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Me. 278

Sears v. Wright

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 15, 1844

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1844-07-15

Assumpsit on a note of the following tenor: — “Bangor, June 15, 1836. For value received, we promise to pay Silas Sears two hundred and thirty-three dollars and ninety-six cents, from the avails of the logs bought of Martin Mower, when there is a sale made. $233,98. Winslow Wright & Co.” The action was commenced on June 24, 1841.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1844-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 1963

1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 states

701844185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

¶1The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Whitman C. J.

¶2The note in suit was payable, “from the avails of the logs bought of Martin Mower, when there is a sale made.” The logs referred to, were sold to the defendant for $6496,02; and many years had elapsed after the giving of the note, before the suit was commenced. It is contended, that the logs could not be sold; and that, on being manufactured into boards, there was a total loss to the owners; and it was offered to be proved, that it was the understanding of the parties, if such should turn out to be the case, that the note was not to be paid. We think the Judge at the trial did right in not permitting such a defence to be set up, as it would have been manifestly opposed to the spirit and meaning of the written contract, into which the defendant had entered. By the terms of that contract it could not be inferred, that the plaintiff had consented to subject himself to any such contingency. His agreement in terms was to wait till the logs could be sold. Thus the defendants had a duty to perform. They were bound to sell the logs and to do it within a reasonable time. A reasonable time for such purpose, had long since elapsed. To pretend that a quantity of logs, for which the defendant had been contented to pay $6496,02, could not be sold for the amount, ($233,91, and interest) due to the plaintiff, cannot be deemed otherwise than preposterous. Judgment must be entered upon the default.

/24/me/278 · .json · Public domain