Milton Contracting Corp. v. City of Brockton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Milton Contracting Corp. v. City of Brockton

271 N.E.2d 363, 359 Mass. 759, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 984

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 4, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 271 N.E.2d 363 (Milton Contracting Corp. v. City of Brockton) 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

Milton Contracting Corp. v. City of Brockton, 271 N.E.2d 363, 359 Mass. 759, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 984 (Mass. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

This action of contract is before us on the plaintiff’s exceptions after trial, jury waived, and a general finding for the defendant. The plaintiff contracted to reconstruct or resurface portions of certain streets, and claims damages from delays caused by “unreasonable and negligent” conduct and “indecision’-’ on the part of the defendant’s officials. Farina Bros. Co. Inc. v. Commonwealth, 357 Mass. 131, 137-140. Alpert v. Commonwealth, 357 Mass. [760]*760306, 320-321. In those cases, however, we overruled exceptions after findings for the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's exception to the judge's general finding brings no question of law before us. State Line Contractors, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 356 Mass. 306, 308. The plaintiff does not argue its exception to the allowance of the defendant’s requests for rulings. The denial of the plaintiff's fifth request might have been error if that request could be read as saying that the evidence warranted a finding for the plaintiff. But the request is verbose and confusing, and is more naturally read as saying that the evidence compelled such a finding. Since we have before us neither the evidence nor subsidiary findings by the judge, we cannot say that it was error to deny the request.'

Herbert Abrams (Franklin Lemenberg with him) for the plaintiff. Joseph I. Sousa, City Solicitqr, for the defendant.

Exceptions oveiruled.

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

This action of contract is before us on the plaintiff’s exceptions after trial, jury waived, and a general finding for the defendant. The plaintiff contracted to reconstruct or resurface portions of certain streets, and claims damages from delays caused by “unreasonable and negligent” conduct and “indecision’-’ on the part of the defendant’s officials. Farina Bros. Co. Inc. v. Commonwealth, 357 Mass. 131, 137-140. Alpert v. Commonwealth, 357 Mass. [760]*760306, 320-321. In those cases, however, we overruled exceptions after findings for the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's exception to the judge's general finding brings no question of law before us. State Line Contractors, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 356 Mass. 306, 308. The plaintiff does not argue its exception to the allowance of the defendant’s requests for rulings. The denial of the plaintiff's fifth request might have been error if that request could be read as saying that the evidence warranted a finding for the plaintiff. But the request is verbose and confusing, and is more naturally read as saying that the evidence compelled such a finding. Since we have before us neither the evidence nor subsidiary findings by the judge, we cannot say that it was error to deny the request.'

Herbert Abrams (Franklin Lemenberg with him) for the plaintiff. Joseph I. Sousa, City Solicitqr, for the defendant.

Exceptions oveiruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 N.E.2d 363, 359 Mass. 759, 1971 Mass. LEXIS 984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milton-contracting-corp-v-city-of-brockton-mass-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack