Henry H. Tuttle Co v. Phipps
107 N.E. 354, 219 Mass. 474, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1575
Opinion
This case is concluded by the decision in Fera v. Child, 115 Mass. 32. No distinction should be made between the agreement in the lease in that case and that in the lease in the case at bar. That decision should not be overruled. The distinction between Fera v. Child, ubi supra, and Smith v. Faxon, 156 Mass. 589, is fully explained in the latter case.
Judgment for the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Henry H. Tuttle Co v. Phipps, 107 N.E. 354, 219 Mass. 474, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1575 (Mass. 1914).
107 N.E. 354 (Henry H. Tuttle Co v. Phipps) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
R. H. Macy & Co. v. City of Fall River
83 N.E.2d 880 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
McLeod v. I. J. Fox, Inc.
4 Mass. App. Div. 269 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
American Sandpaper Co. v. Waltham Factories, Inc.
12 N.E.2d 827 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
J. W. Grady Co. v. Herrick
192 N.E. 748 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Arling v. Zeitz
269 Ill. App. 562 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1933)
Kirshenbaum v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.
180 N.E. 245 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)
Cannon v. Bresch
160 A. 595 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1932)
Singer v. Farquharson Confectionery Co.
169 N.E. 918 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Weirick v. Hamm Realty Co.
228 N.W. 175 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)
Clarke v. Ames
165 N.E. 696 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Oscar Ruff Drug Co. v. Western Iowa Co.
191 Iowa 1035 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1921)