Moore v. Massachusetts Benefit Ass'n

43 N.E. 298, 165 Mass. 517, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 312
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided April 1, 1896·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Allen, J.

The plaintiff’s own testimony shows that he received the money and signed the release with the clear understanding that his claim was thereby satisfied and settled, so that he was thereafter to receive nothing further. There was no [518]*518room for the suggestion that he was still to have a right of action left, and that the money was to apply only to a part of his claim. Under these circumstances he could not rescind the settlement and maintain an action on his claim without first returning the money which he received. Drohan v. Lake Shore Michigan Southern Railway, 162 Mass. 435, and cases there cited. Exceptions overruled.

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

Moore v. Massachusetts Benefit Ass'n, 43 N.E. 298, 165 Mass. 517, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 312 (Mass. 1896).

43 N.E. 298 (Moore v. Massachusetts Benefit Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Loomis v. Pease
125 N.E. 177 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Brocklehurst & Potter Co. v. Marsch
225 Mass. 3 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Webb v. Lothrop
224 Mass. 103 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Westerfeld v. New York Life Insurance
58 P. 92 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Bruce v. Anderson
57 N.E. 354 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
Ewing v. Composite Brake Shoe Co.
47 N.E. 241 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)