Curwen v. Quill

43 N.E. 203, 165 Mass. 373, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 268
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 29, 1896·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Field, C. J.

The only exception in this case is the following : “ At the close of the testimony the defendants asked the court to rule that, upon the whole testimony, the plaintiff agreed to build a shank machine which would do the work; namely, cut shanks such as were shown and left with the plaintiff as hereinbefore stated, and that upon the whole testimony the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The court declined to rule as requested, and found for the plaintiff for the amount stated in the auditor’s report.”

All the material testimony is recited in the exceptions, and it is plain that the court could properly find from the evidence that the plaintiff never agreed “ to build a shank machine which would do the work,” but that the agreement was that he would build a machine according to the drawings made by his draughtsman, of which the defendants had approved. This agreement the plaintiff had performed. See Cunningham v. Hall, 4 Allen, 268.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Curwen v. Quill, 43 N.E. 203, 165 Mass. 373, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 268 (Mass. 1896).

43 N.E. 203 (Curwen v. Quill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Conners v. Town of Tewksbury
63 N.E.2d 348 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)
American Historical Society, Inc. v. Storer
122 N.E. 392 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Rose v. Harllee
48 S.E. 541 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1904)