Glidden v. Child

122 Mass. 433, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 153
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided April 10, 1877·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The first exception cannot be sustained. The written agreement of the defendants was an original, and not a collateral promise; and the plaintiff, upon substantially performing the agreement on his part, with variations assented to by the defendants, might maintain this action on an account annexed.

The rest of the bill of exceptions was rightly disallowed by the presiding judge as not conformable to the truth. The report of the commissioner shows that, upon the question of waiver or variation of the terms of the written agreement, material evidence of the action of the inspector of buildings, and of the silence of one of the defendants when applied to for payment, was introduced at the trial, and not stated in the bill of exceptions presented to the judge.

Both parts of the case are covered by previous decisions. Cullen v. Sears, 112 Mass. 299. Arvilla v. Spaulding, 121 Mass. 505. Exceptions overruled.

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

Glidden v. Child, 122 Mass. 433, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 153 (Mass. 1877).

122 Mass. 433 (Glidden v. Child) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moneyweight Scale Co.
225 Mass. 473 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Briggs v. De Peiffer
100 N.E. 1085 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Bigelow v. Sprague
5 N.E. 144 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)