Gifford v. Mercantile Wharf Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Gifford v. Mercantile Wharf Corp.

246 N.E.2d 171, 355 Mass. 792

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 246 N.E.2d 171 (Gifford v. Mercantile Wharf Corp.) 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

Gifford v. Mercantile Wharf Corp., 246 N.E.2d 171, 355 Mass. 792 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of contract demurrers were sustained to the declaration and to the amended declaration. The plaintiff appealed from each ruling. The plaintiff, a tenant at will of the defendant’s premises, made improvements to permit the installation of an egg processing machine and refrigeration plant which were wrought into the real estate. The Boston Redevelopment Authority took the premises by eminent domain, and paid the defendant a sum in compensation which included the value of the plaintiff’s improvements. The loss of such improvements by a tenant at will is not compensable. Riedel v. Plymouth Redevelopment Authy. 354 Mass. 664, 666. The amended declaration sought damages for unjust enrichment. It alleged that the defendant promised “to protect the plaintiff’s investment in the defendant’s property in the event* of a taking by eminent domain.” This statement is too vague to give rise to any cause of action. Grandchamp v. Costello, 289 Mass. 506, 507. The appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer to the original declaration is dismissed. National Overall Dry Cleaning Co. v. Yavner, 321 Mass. 434, 436. The order sustaining the demurrer to the amended declaration is affirmed.

So ordered.

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

In this action of contract demurrers were sustained to the declaration and to the amended declaration. The plaintiff appealed from each ruling. The plaintiff, a tenant at will of the defendant’s premises, made improvements to permit the installation of an egg processing machine and refrigeration plant which were wrought into the real estate. The Boston Redevelopment Authority took the premises by eminent domain, and paid the defendant a sum in compensation which included the value of the plaintiff’s improvements. The loss of such improvements by a tenant at will is not compensable. Riedel v. Plymouth Redevelopment Authy. 354 Mass. 664, 666. The amended declaration sought damages for unjust enrichment. It alleged that the defendant promised “to protect the plaintiff’s investment in the defendant’s property in the event* of a taking by eminent domain.” This statement is too vague to give rise to any cause of action. Grandchamp v. Costello, 289 Mass. 506, 507. The appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer to the original declaration is dismissed. National Overall Dry Cleaning Co. v. Yavner, 321 Mass. 434, 436. The order sustaining the demurrer to the amended declaration is affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 N.E.2d 171, 355 Mass. 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gifford-v-mercantile-wharf-corp-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack