Case Name: Charles D. Coolidge versus Moses Poor and Another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1819-03
Citations: 14 Tyng 427
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles D. Coolidge versus Moses Poor and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
Charles D. Coolidge versus Moses Poor and Another.
When a commission merchant, residing and transacting his business in this state, has occasion to sue his correspondent, living in another state, for the balance of his account, the cause of action is considered as arising in this state.
This was assumpsit, to recover the balance of the plaintiff’s account for moneys advanced and paid by him for the use of the defendants; who pleaded certain laws of the state of Maryland, for the relief of insolvent debtors, in bar of the action; and the issue was, whether the cause of action accrued in Baltimore, in that state.
On the trial of this issue before Jackson, J., it appeared that, at the time of the transactions between the parties upon which this action was founded, and ever since, the plaintiff was a merchant residing and doing business at Boston, and the defendants were merchants residing and doing business at Baltimore.
The plaintiff, from time to time, advanced and paid money in Massachusetts, by order and for the use of the defendants; and there sold and disposed of merchandise and other effects consigned and remitted to him by the defendants, the proceeds of which were passed to their credit; and for the balance of his account of all these negotiations, the present action was brought. * There was no special agreement, nor other circumstance, to distinguish this from other common negotiations between two merchants, residing in different places.
The judge directed the jury in favor of the plaintiff, and a verdict being so returned, the defendants moved for a new trial, on account of the said direction.
Shaw, for the defendants,
argued that the contract declared on was made with reference to the laws of Maryland. The money was paid on drafts made at Baltimore. Money is to be demanded and received from debtors at the place of their residence; and the plaintiff, as well as the defendants, must have intended and expected that the balance now sued for was to be paid on the plaintiff’s draft on the defendants, at Baltimore. Such is the usual manner of transacting business among merchants, and there was no evidence of any other intention in this case. The plaintiff could have had no remedy in view, but the laws of the country where his debtors dwell.
J. T. Austin, for the plaintiff,
cited and relied on the case of Bradford &f Al. vs. Farrand.
13 Mass. Rep. 1, Blanchard, vs. Russell
Ibid. 18.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The single question, in this case, is whether, when a commission merchant, residing and transacting his business in this state, shall have occasion to sue his correspondent, living in another stale, for the balance of his account, the cause of action shall be said to have arisen here, or in such other state ; and we are all of opinion the cause of action arises here, and that judgment, in this ease, be entered upon the verdict,
Vide Tappan vs. Poor & Al., ante, 419