Dwight v. Ludlow Manufacturing Co.

128 Mass. 280, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 62
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 27, 1880·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Ames, J.

The interpretation of the contract adopted by the arbitrator was, in our judgment, the only one which it would bear. The plaintiff’s letter contains a proposition “ to put the gutter of mill No 2 in proper shape without charge.” This was very far from a proposition to furnish a new gutter of a different construction. The defendant’s letter accepting the proposition requires the plaintiff to “ repair and renew, so far as necessary, the [282] gutter of Mill No. 2.” This form of expression can only mean that the plaintiff was to make such repairs and renewals that the existing gutter should do all that it was capable of doing, when in good condition, according to its original construction. The result is that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the larger of the two sums reported by the arbitrator.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Dwight v. Ludlow Manufacturing Co., 128 Mass. 280, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 62 (Mass. 1880).

128 Mass. 280 (Dwight v. Ludlow Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boston & Albany Railroad v. Department of Public Utilities
51 N.E.2d 445 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
O'Donnell v. Mathews
284 S.W. 204 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1926)
Garland v. Samson
237 F. 31 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)
Abell v. Abell
2 Balt. C. Rep. 174 (Baltimore City Circuit Court, 1901)
Vass v. Wales
129 Mass. 38 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)