History
  • No items yet
midpage
Everett v. Gray
1 Mass. 101
| Mass. | 1804
|
Check Treatment

The whole Court (Strong, Sedgwick, Sewall, and Thacher, justices) ruled, that as the defendants had accepted the locks without objecting to.them at the time of delivery, it was not competent to them to go into this defence in this action ; but their remedy would be by a special action of the case against the plaintiff for the deceit and fraud in the workmanship. The defendants were defaulted, and damages assessed for the whole sum demanded in the count upon the special agreement, (a)

s) [Such defence is good in case of a sale with warranty. Cormack vs. Gilles, 7 East, 480.—King vs. Bosson, ib. 481.—Germaine vs. Burton, 3 Starkie's Rep. 32.—Baston vs. Butter, 7 East, 480.—Street vs. Blag, 2 B. & A. 456.—Dodge & Al. vs. Tileston Al., 12 Pick. 358.—Ed.]

Case Details

Case Name: Everett v. Gray
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Oct 15, 1804
Citation: 1 Mass. 101
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.