Derrig v. Dyer

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Derrig v. Dyer

103 N.E. 380, 216 Mass. 164, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1378

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 N.E. 380 (Derrig v. Dyer) 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

Derrig v. Dyer, 103 N.E. 380, 216 Mass. 164, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1378 (Mass. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Sheldon, J.

While the evidence was conflicting, it could have been found that the defendant had broken his agreement with the plaintiffs, and that the defendant’s work had not been approved by the committee appointed by the directors of the Union Hospital or by a majority of that committee. If this, was so, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a verdict, under the circumstances shown here, unless the defendant showed that there had been a [165]*165settlement of the whole matter between himself and them; and certainly it could not be said as matter of law that he had shown this. Even if the plaintiffs could have recovered only nominal damages, which we do not decide, they still would be entitled to a new trial, a verdict having been ordered against them. Beach & Clarridge Co. v. American Steam Gauge & Valve Manuf. Co. 202 Mass. 177, 184, 185.

Upon the question of the amount of damages that can be recovered, it is manifest that the present circumstances may be altered before another trial can be had, and we do not deem it necessary now to pass upon that point.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Sheldon, J.

While the evidence was conflicting, it could have been found that the defendant had broken his agreement with the plaintiffs, and that the defendant’s work had not been approved by the committee appointed by the directors of the Union Hospital or by a majority of that committee. If this, was so, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a verdict, under the circumstances shown here, unless the defendant showed that there had been a [165]*165settlement of the whole matter between himself and them; and certainly it could not be said as matter of law that he had shown this. Even if the plaintiffs could have recovered only nominal damages, which we do not decide, they still would be entitled to a new trial, a verdict having been ordered against them. Beach & Clarridge Co. v. American Steam Gauge & Valve Manuf. Co. 202 Mass. 177, 184, 185.

Upon the question of the amount of damages that can be recovered, it is manifest that the present circumstances may be altered before another trial can be had, and we do not deem it necessary now to pass upon that point.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 N.E. 380, 216 Mass. 164, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derrig-v-dyer-mass-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack