Murdough v. Inhabitants of Revere

42 N.E. 502, 165 Mass. 109, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 187
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 2, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 42 N.E. 502 (Murdough v. Inhabitants of Revere) 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
Murdough v. Inhabitants of Revere, 42 N.E. 502, 165 Mass. 109, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 187 (Mass. 1896).

Opinion

Allen, J.

The committee, acting as a committee, adopted specifications, in which the right to reject any or all proposals was reserved. Two of the three members of the committee afterwards, acting individually, said that the job should be let to the lowest bidder, and on the strength of this the plaintiff [113]*113made his proposal, which was the lowest; but the committee acting together awarded the contract to another bidder. The question is, Could the two members of the committee, acting individually, do away with the action of the board in reserving the right to reject proposals ? In our opinion, they could not. In Haven v. Lowell, 5 Met. 35, it was held, as expressed in the carefully prepared head-note, that an agreement for the purchase of land for a town, made by all the members of a committee duly authorized by the town to purchase it, and put in writing and signed by part of the committee, on behalf and at the verbal request of the committee, is the written agreement of the whole committee, and binding on the town. In Shea v. Milford, 145 Mass. 528, it was held that a building committee might act by the agreement of all of the individual members separately obtained. But a part of the members of a committee, by their separate action, not at a meeting of the committee, cannot set aside the formal action of the committee as a whole.

The plaintiff contends that it might have been found that the provision of the specifications was waived at a meeting of' the committee. But there is nothing in the bill of exceptions which warrants this assumption. The direction of the court to' return a verdict for the defendant was right.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

City of Lawrence v. Stratton
45 N.E.2d 460 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Larkin v. County Commissioners
174 N.E. 684 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Barnard v. Inhabitants of Shelburne
109 N.E. 818 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Rowe v. Inhabitants of Peabody
93 N.E. 604 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Damon v. Selectmen of Framingham
80 N.E. 644 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Revere Water Co. v. Inhabitants of Winthrop
78 N.E. 497 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Burge v. Town of Rockwell City
94 N.W. 1103 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Winterport Water Co. v. Inhabitants of Winterport
47 A. 142 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 N.E. 502, 165 Mass. 109, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murdough-v-inhabitants-of-revere-mass-1896.