Newton Rubber Works v. Graham

50 N.E. 547, 171 Mass. 352, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 88
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 23, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 50 N.E. 547 (Newton Rubber Works v. Graham) 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
Newton Rubber Works v. Graham, 50 N.E. 547, 171 Mass. 352, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 88 (Mass. 1898).

Opinion

Morton, J.

The body of the agreement is an engagement on the part of such creditors of the Quincy Cycle Company as shall sign it to transfer their claims to the defendant upon receiving from him notes or cash therefor as specified in the agreement. There is in it no contract on the part of the defendant that he will purchase such claims, and pay therefor in notes or cash as set forth in the agreement. The question then is whether the defendant’s signature to the supplemental line, which reads, “ I authorize the above offer, and agree to carry the same out if secured within the time named,” imports an absolute or a conditional liability on his part, and if the latter, whether the cause of action, if any, has been well pleaded.

It is clear, we think, that the liability is a conditional one. The defendant authorizes and agrees to carry out the stipulations contained in the body of the agreement, “ if secured within the time named ” in it. That is plainly a conditional undertaking, and, according to well settled rules of pleading, the condition should have been set out as a part "of the contract, and performance of it averred, or the want of performance excused. Newcomb v. Brackett, 16 Mass. 161. Whitaker v. Smith, 4 Pick. 83. Stanwood v. Scovel, 4 Pick. 422. Codding v. Mansfield, 7 Gray, 272. Murdock v. Caldwell, 8 Allen, 309. Riley v. Farnsworth, 111 Mass. 152. Palmer v. Sawyer, 114 Mass. 1, 13. Pub. Sts. c. 167, § 2, cl. 10. The allegation- that “ the plaintiff has done and performed all things on its part in said agreement contained to be done and performed, and that it has kept all of the conditions of said agreement,” is not sufficient. The condition should also be set out.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Related

Salafia v. CNA Insurance
2001 Mass. App. Div. 8 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 2001)
Nguyen v. Roth Realty, Inc.
550 So. 2d 490 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Damiano v. National Grange Mutual Liability Co.
56 N.E.2d 18 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Krinsky v. Whitney
54 N.E.2d 36 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Lane v. Sullivan
19 N.E.2d 74 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Wesalo v. Commissioner of Insurance
13 N.E.2d 420 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Mirachnick v. Kaplan
1 N.E.2d 40 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Aisenberg v. Royal Insurance
266 Mass. 543 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Fried v. Singer
136 N.E. 609 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Jewett v. Warriner
129 N.E. 296 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Marsch v. Southern New England Railroad
230 Mass. 483 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
National Contracting Co. v. Commonwealth
66 N.E. 639 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Elastic Tip Co. v. Graham
55 N.E. 315 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 N.E. 547, 171 Mass. 352, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-rubber-works-v-graham-mass-1898.