Ricker v. Cutter

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Ricker v. Cutter

74 Mass. 248

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 74 Mass. 248 (Ricker v. Cutter) 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

Ricker v. Cutter, 74 Mass. 248 (Mass. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Bigelow, J.

The judge erred in submitting to the jury the question whether, by the terms of the contract under which the houses were to be erected for the plaintiff, the defendant was required to build the sheds. This was clearly a question of law, to be determined on the true construction of the written contract, and it was the exclusive province of the court to interpret the agreement, and to give to the jury suitable instructions as to its meaning. Hutchison v. Bowker, 5 M. & W. 535. But this error is no ground for setting aside the verdict, because it is clear that the jury have put on the clause of the contract in question a correct construction, such as the court should have given, and have found their verdict accordingly. Doe v. Strickland, 8 C. B. 724. Emerson v. Cogswell, 16 Maine, 77. Hathaway v. Crosby, 17 Maine, 448. The sheds or kitchens were part of the house, which the plaintiff was bound to erect before he could claim of the defendant a conveyance of the land.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Bigelow, J.

The judge erred in submitting to the jury the question whether, by the terms of the contract under which the houses were to be erected for the plaintiff, the defendant was required to build the sheds. This was clearly a question of law, to be determined on the true construction of the written contract, and it was the exclusive province of the court to interpret the agreement, and to give to the jury suitable instructions as to its meaning. Hutchison v. Bowker, 5 M. & W. 535. But this error is no ground for setting aside the verdict, because it is clear that the jury have put on the clause of the contract in question a correct construction, such as the court should have given, and have found their verdict accordingly. Doe v. Strickland, 8 C. B. 724. Emerson v. Cogswell, 16 Maine, 77. Hathaway v. Crosby, 17 Maine, 448. The sheds or kitchens were part of the house, which the plaintiff was bound to erect before he could claim of the defendant a conveyance of the land.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 Mass. 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricker-v-cutter-mass-1857.