Donlan v. City of Boston

111 N.E. 718, 223 Mass. 285, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 924
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 3, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 111 N.E. 718 (Donlan v. City of Boston) 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
Donlan v. City of Boston, 111 N.E. 718, 223 Mass. 285, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 924 (Mass. 1916).

Opinion

Braley, J.

The plaintiff’s testatrix died while in the employment of the defendant as a teacher of manual training in the public schools under a contract at a fixed yearly salary, and this action is brought to recover the balance which would have been due if she had survived the period. It is settled that as performance by her depended upon her personal judgment, ability and efforts, there was an implied condition to which the contract was subject that she should be living and physically able to do the work. Marvel v. Phillips, 162 Mass. 399, 401. The contract therefore was terminated by her death before the year had ended. Browne v. Fairhall, 213 Mass. 290, 294. Johnson v. Walker, 155 Mass. 253.

But as the testatrix died during the summer vacation leaving only one month of the school year unpaid for, the plaintiff contends that this amount, being one twelfth of the salary, is collectible on the basis of the payments she had received each month as shown by her signature on the pay rolls. The contract nevertheless was entire, although the payments were made by monthly instalments. Fullam v. Wright & Colton Wire Cloth Co. 196 Mass. 474, 476. Clark v. Gulesian, 197 Mass. 492. Moffat v. Davitt, 200 [286]*286Mass. 452, 458. And full payment having been made of all that was due when her death occurred, and further payments being conditional upon the continuance of the contract and not upon whether she was excused from the rendition of services during the succeeding month, the action cannot be maintained. Johnson v. Walker, 155 Mass. 253, 255. Pollock on Contracts (Wald’s ed.) 543, 548.

W. J. O’Malley, for the defendant. J. Lundy, for the plaintiff.

By the terms of the report

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

Related

Ohrenberger v. City of Boston
162 N.E.2d 774 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Orhenberger v. City of Boston
17 Mass. App. Dec. 107 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1959)
O'Neill v. Metropolitan Transit Authority
13 Mass. App. Dec. 143 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1957)
Owens v. Press Publishing Co.
120 A.2d 442 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1956)
Cobb v. City of Malden
202 F.2d 701 (First Circuit, 1953)
Nutting v. Kneeland
105 N.E.2d 199 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1952)
In Re Public Ledger, Inc.
161 F.2d 762 (Third Circuit, 1947)
Shawsheen Dairy, Inc. v. Keefe
29 N.E.2d 157 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
In Re Wil-Low Cafeterias
111 F.2d 429 (Second Circuit, 1940)
Kaftan v. Siegel
111 F.2d 429 (Second Circuit, 1940)
Cutler v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.
174 N.E. 507 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Russell v. Martin
122 N.E. 447 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 N.E. 718, 223 Mass. 285, 1916 Mass. LEXIS 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donlan-v-city-of-boston-mass-1916.