Oman v. Vickery

62 N.E.2d 112, 318 Mass. 780, 1945 Mass. LEXIS 592
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 28, 1945·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order dismissing report affirmed. The trial judge found for the plaintiff for $712.45 (with interest from the date of demand), the full amount claimed in a count upon an account annexed for labor and materials in building a house for the defendant. A written contract to build the house for a fixed price had been prepared, but it never was executed. The defendant contended that its terms were orally adopted by the parties. The judge found to the contrary. It is true that upon request he made a ruling — immaterial and improper upon his finding — that “the plaintiff cannot recover in quantum meruit unless, he acted in good faith or substantially performed the contract.” But the making of that ruling did not alter his definite and conclusive finding that “the unsigned agreement was not adopted as the oral contract between the parties.” There was no prejudicial error. No error of law appears in denying the defendant’s motion for “correction of the findings and rulings” or his motion for a new trial.

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

Oman v. Vickery, 62 N.E.2d 112, 318 Mass. 780, 1945 Mass. LEXIS 592 (Mass. 1945).

62 N.E.2d 112 (Oman v. Vickery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Conway v. Conners
427 N.E.2d 1015 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1981)