Fritsch v. Korostynski

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Fritsch v. Korostynski

358 N.E.2d 463, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 868

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedDecember 29, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 N.E.2d 463 (Fritsch v. Korostynski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fritsch v. Korostynski, 358 N.E.2d 463, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 868 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

1. As the defendants admit in their brief the Hart testimony was sufficient to warrant the judge’s ultimate finding that the lot in question was not suitable for residential construction when the contract and the deed were executed. The judge’s preference for that testimony over the testimony of Wilson is explained by the judge’s subsidiary finding (amply warranted by the evidence) that Wilson “did not... make any of the other determinations as to soil conditions which would be necessary for the design of a satisfactory sewage disposal system on the lot.” 2. Such lacunae as existed in the formal proof on the questions of (a) the cost and effect of fill and (b) the necessity for and effect of stripping trees and brush could be and were filled by the judge’s exercise of his common sense. 3. So far as the law is concerned, the case was properly decided on the ground and for the reasons stated in the judge’s findings, rulings and order for judgment. The judgment is to be modified so as to contain an actual order for rescission and, as so modified, is affirmed.

So ordered.

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

1. As the defendants admit in their brief the Hart testimony was sufficient to warrant the judge’s ultimate finding that the lot in question was not suitable for residential construction when the contract and the deed were executed. The judge’s preference for that testimony over the testimony of Wilson is explained by the judge’s subsidiary finding (amply warranted by the evidence) that Wilson “did not... make any of the other determinations as to soil conditions which would be necessary for the design of a satisfactory sewage disposal system on the lot.” 2. Such lacunae as existed in the formal proof on the questions of (a) the cost and effect of fill and (b) the necessity for and effect of stripping trees and brush could be and were filled by the judge’s exercise of his common sense. 3. So far as the law is concerned, the case was properly decided on the ground and for the reasons stated in the judge’s findings, rulings and order for judgment. The judgment is to be modified so as to contain an actual order for rescission and, as so modified, is affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 N.E.2d 463, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fritsch-v-korostynski-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack