Hobbs v. Massasoit Whip Co.

158 Mass. 194 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893

Facts

Plaintiff sent eelskins to the defendant, who kept them for several months until they were destroyed, without notifying the plaintiff of rejection. This transaction followed a pattern of four or five previous instances where the defendant had accepted and paid for eelskins sent by the plaintiff.

Procedural history

The case came before this court on exceptions to an instruction given to the jury during the trial. The defendant challenged the correctness of this instruction. This court reviewed the instruction and ultimately overruled the exceptions, affirming the lower court's implicit decision based on the jury's finding.

Issue

Can a jury reasonably find that a defendant accepted goods based on their silence and retention for an unreasonable time, particularly when there is a history of prior dealings between the parties?

Holding

Yes, the court held that the jury was warranted in finding for the plaintiff. Silence coupled with retention of goods for an unreasonable time, especially given prior dealings, can constitute acceptance.

Rule

Conduct that imports acceptance or assent is legally considered acceptance, regardless of the party's actual state of mind. When goods are sent in the context of prior dealings, silence and retention for an unreasonable time can impose a duty to act and be construed as acceptance.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-04-18. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.