The Northeastern Reporter (Volume 20) (Paperback)

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: We discover no other error in the ruling at the trial. The bill of exceptions does not show that evidence was introduced which would have warranted a finding that the defendant was induced to execute the original agreement by fraud. We do not understand that any question was raised in regard to the cost of obtaining the English patent except whether the reasonably necessary expenses of transacting the business, beyond the payments to the inventor, to the patent solicitors, and to the counsel for fees, should be included. By the ruling of the court that question was properly answered in the affirmative. Exceptions sustained. (US Mass. 459) Cabot c. Shaw et al. (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk. February 27,1889.) Pbincipal And Agent?Payments Agent?Liability Third Parties. Plaintiff, who had paid over moneys to an agent on account of his principal, subsequently made a demand upon the agent for their return. Before such demand, and after the payment by plaintiff, the agent, although he had not paid any money directly to the principal, had paid out on his bohalf more than all the moneyp which he had received on his account, including the money of plaintiff, and at the time of the demand the principal was the debtor of the agent. Held that, although the account between the principal and agent had not been settled, the plaintiff could cot hold the agent for the moneys paid to him. Appeal from superior court, Suffolk county. C. Olney, for plaintiff. /. D. Ball, for defendants. Morton, C. J. The plaintiff shipped goods at Boston by the steam-ship Missouri, to Liverpool, and prepaid the freight. The steam-ship was owned by a corporation established by the laws of Great Britain, and the defendants, being copartners doing business in Boston under...