Case Name: Sackett & al. versus Lowell
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1850
Citations: 32 Me. 164
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sackett & al. versus Lowell.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
Sackett & al. versus Lowell.
A purchase of goods by the defendant is not completed by his agreeing to buy them at a fixed price and permitting them to be charged in account, if there be no term of credit agreed on, and if he do not receive the goods, nor order them to be forwarded.
Testimony that the plaintiff made a sale of goods to the defendant, at a stipulated price, and charged them, (in his presence,) in account; that nothing was said as to the length of the credit; that defendant did not take the goods, nor direct them to be forwarded, will not sustain an action for the price of the goods, although the plaintiff forwarded them by express to the city of defendant’s residence; there being no proof that he received them.
Assumpsit for a small bill of jewelry, $32,25, submitted on the evidence contained in the deposition of the plaintiffs’ clerk; the court to render such judgment as law and justice require.
The deposition stated, in substance, that the plaintiffs are jewelers in co-partnership, resident in New York; that deponent is their clerk; that he showed the articles to defendant and told him the price; that he sold them to defendant and charged them on plaintiffs’ book, and defendant saw the charge; that nothing was paid; and that nothing was said about the length of credit; that he did not again see the defendant ; that defendant did not receive the articles or give any direction about their being sent; and that deponent sent them by Hamden’s express, directed to Bangor, the residence of defendant.
Peters, for plaintiff.
Usage fixes the term of credit at six months. A sale and a forwarding were proved. In the absence of direction, as to the sending, custom justifies the course taken. Even if never received, defendant would be liable for the price. Plaintiffs would have been liable to defendant in trover.
In its principles, though not in its facts, this case is like Merrill v. Parker, 24 Maine, 89.
Sanborn, for defendant.

Opinion:
Howard, J.
orally.—There was no delivery of the articles, nor order to send them; and no evidence, that defendant received them. Nothing was paid or agreed to be paid. The evidence is insufficient. Nonsuit.