Dwight v. Ludlow Manufacturing Co.
This text of 128 Mass. 280 (Dwight v. Ludlow Manufacturing Co.) 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.
Opinion
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]*282gutter 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
128 Mass. 280, 1880 Mass. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwight-v-ludlow-manufacturing-co-mass-1880.