Champy v. Merrimack Park Auto Theatre, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Champy v. Merrimack Park Auto Theatre, Inc.

45 N.E.2d 269, 312 Mass. 462, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 856

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 1, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 N.E.2d 269 (Champy v. Merrimack Park Auto Theatre, Inc.) 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

Champy v. Merrimack Park Auto Theatre, Inc., 45 N.E.2d 269, 312 Mass. 462, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 856 (Mass. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Lummus, J.

These cases were heard by an auditor whose findings of fact were to be final, and were presented to the court below on his reports. That court refused to order judgments for the plaintiffs on counts that alleged full performance of the building contract upon which the actions were brought;, because the auditor found substantial performance and waiver of full performance rather than full performance. After recommittal, a count was added to each declaration on a quantum meruit, and judgments for the plaintiffs were ordered on that count, under the rule stated in Andre v. Maguire, 305 Mass. 515, and Russo v. Charles I. Hosmer, Inc., ante, 231. The defendants appealed to this court.

In the work the variations from the contract were small. They did not prevent the contract from being substantially performed. Good faith on the part of the plaintiffs was found. In each case the entry will be

Order for judgment for the plaintiffs affirmed.

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

Lummus, J.

These cases were heard by an auditor whose findings of fact were to be final, and were presented to the court below on his reports. That court refused to order judgments for the plaintiffs on counts that alleged full performance of the building contract upon which the actions were brought;, because the auditor found substantial performance and waiver of full performance rather than full performance. After recommittal, a count was added to each declaration on a quantum meruit, and judgments for the plaintiffs were ordered on that count, under the rule stated in Andre v. Maguire, 305 Mass. 515, and Russo v. Charles I. Hosmer, Inc., ante, 231. The defendants appealed to this court.

In the work the variations from the contract were small. They did not prevent the contract from being substantially performed. Good faith on the part of the plaintiffs was found. In each case the entry will be

Order for judgment for the plaintiffs affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.E.2d 269, 312 Mass. 462, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/champy-v-merrimack-park-auto-theatre-inc-mass-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack