Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

AUSTIN v. RICKER.

Where goods consigned to a commission merchant are sold, and a statement of the sales, with an order on a third person to balance the account, is sent to the consignor, he is bound by the account rendered as by an account stated, unless within a reasonable time he notifies the consignee that he objects.

The question of what is a reasonable time in such cases is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of the facts.

STANLEY, J.

The plaintiff, if he did not accept the account rendered as a correct statement of the account between himself and the defendant, was bound to notify him within a reasonable time of his objections. No objection being made within a reasonable time, the defendant was justified in treating the plaintiff's silence as an admission that the account as rendered was just and true, and that he was willing to be bound by it. Rich v. Eldredge, 42 N.H. 151, 158; Lockwood v. Thorne, 11 N.Y. 170, 174 — S.C., 18 N. Y. 285; Philips v. Belden, 2 Edw. Ch. 1; 1 Sto. Eq. Jur., s. 526.

The question what was a reasonable time was one of fact, to be found by the referee. Tyler v. Webster, 43 N.H. 147, 151; Lawrence v. Ocean Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 241; Aymar v. Beers, 7 Cow. 705; Ellis v. Thompson, 3 M. W. 445; Proffatt Jur. Tr. 288, note 6; Stark. Ev. 775. On this question the finding of the referee is adverse to the plaintiff.

Judgment for the defendant.

DOE, C[.] J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

AUSTIN v. RICKER
(Jun 1, 1881)