Lord v. Town of Winchester

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Lord v. Town of Winchester

244 N.E.2d 730, 355 Mass. 788, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 941

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 244 N.E.2d 730 (Lord v. Town of Winchester) 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

Lord v. Town of Winchester, 244 N.E.2d 730, 355 Mass. 788, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 941 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of contract in which the plaintiff seeks to recover for services and expenses he incurred in his efforts to prevent the defendant from selling certain land. The plaintiff appeals from the order of the Appellate Division dis- ■ missing a report from the District Court judge who found for the defendant. [789]*789The Appellate Division was correct in stating that “Ed or a municipality to be bound . . . there must be a contract and not only must there be an underlying authority in the municipality to make the contract, but . . . must be made on its behalf by a duly authorized agent. If any of these elements is missing, there is no liability on the municipality to perform even in quantum meruit.” Lowell v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. 313 Mass. 257, 272. The plaintiff admits he was a volunteer. There was no error.

Herbert Lord, pro se. No argument or brief for the defendant

Order dismissing report affirmed.

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

This is an action of contract in which the plaintiff seeks to recover for services and expenses he incurred in his efforts to prevent the defendant from selling certain land. The plaintiff appeals from the order of the Appellate Division dis- ■ missing a report from the District Court judge who found for the defendant. [789]*789The Appellate Division was correct in stating that “Ed or a municipality to be bound . . . there must be a contract and not only must there be an underlying authority in the municipality to make the contract, but . . . must be made on its behalf by a duly authorized agent. If any of these elements is missing, there is no liability on the municipality to perform even in quantum meruit.” Lowell v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. 313 Mass. 257, 272. The plaintiff admits he was a volunteer. There was no error.

Herbert Lord, pro se. No argument or brief for the defendant

Order dismissing report affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 N.E.2d 730, 355 Mass. 788, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lord-v-town-of-winchester-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack