Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

38 Me. 589

Cushing v. Wyman

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1854

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1854-07-01

On Report from Nisi Prius, Hathaway, J. presiding. Assumpsit, on account annexed for two horses, and for a note paid by plaintiff. There was also a count for money had and received. The defendants purchased of plaintiff a span of horses, and paid therefor by an unnegotiable note running to one of defendants, which was represented to be due and that it would be paid at maturity.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1882

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Appleton, J.

¶1— If a party would rescind a contract of sale, on the ground of fraud on the part of the vendee, it is his duty to return what he has received in payment, before he can maintain an action for the goods sold. Norton v. Young, 3 Greenl. 30. The plaintiff cannot retain the note of Brown & McCrillis, which he received of the defendants, and at the same time enforce his claim for the horses, which he has admitted to have been paid by that note. The defendants were liable to the plaintiff, on an implied guaranty that the amount purporting to be, was actually due. The note was of value to them, as evidence of indebtedness on the part of the makers, and should have been returned or the offer to return should have been made, before instituting the present suit. The case of Cushman v. Marshall, 21 Maine, 122, is decisive of the one now before us.

¶2Plaintiff nonsuit.

Shepley, C. J., and Tenney, Howard and Hathaway, J. J., concurred. ;
/38/me/589 · .json · Public domain