McNeilly v. Buck

234 N.E.2d 293, 353 Mass. 768, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 910
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 1, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 N.E.2d 293 (McNeilly v. Buck) 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
McNeilly v. Buck, 234 N.E.2d 293, 353 Mass. 768, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 910 (Mass. 1968).

Opinion

This action of contract was referred to an auditor whose findings of fact were to be final. The declaration contained three counts, each in quantum meruit for labor and materials. Count 1 is against Richard D. Buck, count 2 is against George H. F. Buck, and count 3 is against both defendants. 1 They filed a declaration in set-off. After the auditor’s report was filed the trial judge, inter alla, denied the plaintiffs’ motion to recommit and allowed the motions of the defendants for judgments in their favor. The judge also ordered judgment for George as plaintiff in set-off in the amount determined by the auditor. The plaintiffs duly excepted. The judge stated that his “reason” for ordering judgment for the defendant George on counts 2 and 3 “is that according to the findings of the Auditor . . . [w]hether the contract ... to do specified work and labor was one for an expressly stated price or . . . one without an agreed price . . . the plaintiff [s3 . . . [have3 . . . failed to establish substantial performance and an effort in good faith fully to perform.” Our examination of the auditor’s report satisfies us that the judge was right on this point. However, we do not agree that George as plaintiff in set-off is entitled to recover on his declaration in set-off for his expenses "in order to complete the work.” We have examined the various items in his declaration and we conclude that to award damages to him would put him in a better position than if the plaintiffs (defendants in set-off) had carried out the contract. Ficara v. Belleau, 331 Mass. 80, 82. Webber v. [769]*769Johnson, 342 Mass. 455, at 459. George is entitled to be made whole and no more. The exception to the judge’s order for judgment for George on his declaration in set-off is sustained. Judgment is to be entered for the plaintiffs (defendants in set-off) on the declaration in set-off. All other exceptions are overruled.

Russell H. Mann, Jr. (Walter E. Palmer with him) for the plaintiffs. Frederick A. Busconi (John J. Sullivan, Jr., with him) for the defendants.

So ordered.

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

Related

Wallace Construction Company v. Rude
535 P.2d 1218 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 N.E.2d 293, 353 Mass. 768, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneilly-v-buck-mass-1968.