Amesbury & Salisbury Gas Co. v. Gibney

97 N.E. 88, 210 Mass. 498, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 999
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 3, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 97 N.E. 88 (Amesbury & Salisbury Gas Co. v. Gibney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amesbury & Salisbury Gas Co. v. Gibney, 97 N.E. 88, 210 Mass. 498, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 999 (Mass. 1912).

Opinion

Hammond, J.

Upon the evidence including the admission made at the trial by the defendant through his counsel, the jury might have found that the season for the furnishing of gas by the plaintiff to the summer resort where the defendant’s houses were situated did not exceed four months in a year; that during the season of 1908 the plaintiff’s meters for the use of which this action was brought were in the defendant’s houses at his request or desire; that before the beginning of the year 1908 the defendant duly received a notice from the plaintiff to the effect that the latter would enforce the law allowing it as a gas company “ to get $7 from each consumer as a minimum and that if that amount was not paid his meters would be removed and the supply of gas stopped; ” that under the circumstances [500]*500the defendant never expected to have the gas turned on except at the usual annual season of four months, and that he never requested to have it turned on at any other time; that he made no reply to such communication nor asked the plaintiff to take out the meters, but actively used them in procuring gas for his use during the whole season of 1908 without making any protest whatever. As a natural inference from these findings they might further find that the defendant assented to the terms of the notice and that the meters were used by him in compliance therewith ; that these terms entered into the contract between him and the plaintiff; and that in accordance with the contract as thus established there were due to the plaintiff the sums named in the third and fourth items. This would make out a case for these items which were the only ones on which the jury held the defendant.

There is nothing in R L. c. 58, § 12, upon which the defendant relies, inconsistent with the making of such a contract.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Albiani v. Loudd
344 N.E.2d 188 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1976)
Bates Block Associates, Inc. v. Milady's Shop, Inc.
333 N.E.2d 214 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1975)
Wessinger v. H. Werner Sons Co.
162 N.E.2d 834 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Champlin v. Jackson
58 N.E.2d 757 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
Williams v. Seder
27 N.E.2d 708 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Johnson County Gas Co. v. Stafford
248 S.W. 515 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 N.E. 88, 210 Mass. 498, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amesbury-salisbury-gas-co-v-gibney-mass-1912.