Home Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Baker

307 N.E.2d 346, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 879, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 726
CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court
DecidedFebruary 27, 1974
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 307 N.E.2d 346 (Home Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Baker) 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
Home Carpet Cleaning Co. v. Baker, 307 N.E.2d 346, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 879, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 726 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Home Carpet Cleaning Company, Inc. (Home), brought this action of contract with counts on an express contract and in quantum meruit to recover for services performed and material supplied to Henry Baker (Baker) for cleaning, repairing and replacing rugs [880]*880damaged by the bursting of a hot water pipe in Baker’s apartment. Identical counts were brought against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), the insurer of the installer of the pipe. The District Court judge found for the plaintiff against each defendant on the counts in quantum meruit and found for the defendants on the the counts on express contract. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding against Baker, reversed the finding against Liberty and ordered entry of judgment for the latter. No appeal was taken by Home from the order with respect to Liberty; so only Baker’s appeal from the finding against him is before us. (The appeal was transferred to us under G. L. c. 211A, § 12.) In order to recover in quantum meruit it must appear that the work was performed under circumstances warranting a finding that the plaintiff expected that the defendant would pay for the work, that the defendant acted with that expectation and that the defendant allowed the plaintiff so to act without objection. Albert v. Boston Mortgage Bond Co. 237 Mass. 118, 121 (1921). From a review of the evidence, including exhibits, contained in the judge’s consolidated report to the Appellate Division, we are satisfied that the evidence did not, as matter of law, warrant a finding for Home. Treating the order of the Appellate Division as a dismissal of the report, that order is reversed. The finding for the plaintiff is vacated and judgment is to be entered for the defendant Baker.

William B. Baker for Henry Baker.

So ordered.

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

Related

LFS Group, Inc. v. Gutzler
2011 Mass. App. Div. 83 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2011)
David v. Town of Webster
24 Mass. L. Rptr. 262 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2008)
Wendt v. Barnum
2007 Mass. App. Div. 93 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2007)
Bolen v. Paragon Plastics, Inc.
747 F. Supp. 103 (D. Massachusetts, 1990)
Lewis v. Marsh
489 N.E.2d 1269 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1986)
Nassr v. COMMONWEALTH NASSR
477 N.E.2d 987 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1985)
Dr. Franklin Perkins School v. Freeman
741 F.2d 1503 (Seventh Circuit, 1984)
Massachusetts General Hospital v. Brody
454 N.E.2d 1281 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)
Heuler Tile Co. v. Speros
1983 Mass. App. Div. 194 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1983)
Indianapolis Raceway Park, Inc. v. Curtiss
386 N.E.2d 724 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
307 N.E.2d 346, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 879, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/home-carpet-cleaning-co-v-baker-massappct-1974.