# Farrell v. Lovett

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · June 29, 1878 · 68 Me. 326

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4933347

## Case

- **Full name:** James P. Farrell v. Benjamin L. Lovett
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** June 29, 1878
- **Citations:** 68 Me. 326; 1878 Me. LEXIS 100
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Barrows
- **Judges:** Appleton, Barrows, Danforth, Dickerson, Libbey, Peters, Virgin, Walton
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4933347

## Opinion text

Barrows, J.,
concurred in the result, because there was no evidence to connect the merchant with the peddler, except the inadmissible statement of the defendant that the peddler said he was the agent for the merchant, which should have been stricken out.
Dickerson, J.,
non-concurred, on the grounds that the statement that “ the goods were manufactured from the best material” was an assertion of a material fact known by him to be false, but not known or determinable by the defendant on inspection of the goods; and that the facts should be submitted to the jury on the question of notice.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4933347. Public record. Not legal advice.