Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Mass. 592

Goodell v. Smith

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 15, 1852

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1852-09-15

<p>The defendant agreed in writing to go to California with a mining company, as a substitute for the plaintiif, to work with- the company two years, and to remit one half of his net earnings to the plaintiff, “ at the expiration of the association.” The company disbanded before the two years expired, and the plaintiff received his share of the profits to the time of dissolution. The defendant continued to labor in California on his own account, but refused to pay over any share to the plaintiff afterwards. Held, he was not bound to do so.</p> <p>A plaintiff, who declares upon and offers in evidence a written contract as his ground of action, cannot introduce the oral declarations of the defendant as to his supposed liability.</p>

Decided 1852-09-15

Shaw, C. J.

¶1It is quite clear, we think, that the $325, advanced by the plaintiff, cannot be recovered of the defendant. Three hundred of it was paid to the company and not to Smith, to enable the plaintiff to become a member, which he did in his own name. The $25 was paid Smith, in part consideration of his executory agreement to go to California. Smith’s agreement with Goodell was special, to go to California, as Goodell’s substitute, to work in that company. He did go to California, and worked as long as the association remained in existence. We are of opinion that no breach of that agreement is either alleged or proved. No agreement to work in California, independent of the association, is averred; if there was any such contract, it should have been alleged and proved.

¶2The agreement between these parties being in writing, the admissions of the defendant, as to its effect were rightly rejected. If they varied the terms, they were not competent; if they did not, they were immaterial.

¶3Exceptions overruled.

/63/mass/592 · .json · Public domain