Sargent v. Pray

117 Mass. 267, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 210
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 1, 1875·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Ames, J.

The covenant of the lessees was not a mere promise of indemnity against the tax, but a promise to pay it to the lessors on the first day of November, each year of the term. It was not necessary to the plaintiffs’ right of action therefore, upon [269] that covenant, that they should first have paid the tax themselves. Wilkinson v. Libbey, 1 Allen, 375. The destruction of the building by fire did not entitle the tenants, under the clause of the lease referring to that contingency, to a proportionate abatement of the taxes payable by them. Wood v. Bogle, 115 Mass. 30. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover the amount paid by them' to the city with interest from the date of the payment, not including the costs. The costs incurred by reason of any delay in their payment to the city must be considered as the result of their own fault or negligence, and are not to be included in the amount which the plaintiffs may recover.

Judgment for the plaintiffs accordingly.

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

Sargent v. Pray, 117 Mass. 267, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 210 (Mass. 1875).

117 Mass. 267 (Sargent v. Pray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Factory Realty Corp. v. Corbin-Holmes Shoe Co.
44 N.E.2d 671 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Welch v. Gordon
188 N.E. 239 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Kirby v. Goldman
170 N.E. 414 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Richardson v. Gordon
74 N.E. 344 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Bowditch v. Chickering
30 N.E. 92 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Hodgkins v. Price
137 Mass. 13 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Minot v. Joy
118 Mass. 308 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)