Sims v. Mason

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Sims v. Mason

281 N.E.2d 608, 361 Mass. 881

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 6, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 281 N.E.2d 608 (Sims v. Mason) 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

Sims v. Mason, 281 N.E.2d 608, 361 Mass. 881 (Mass. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Two attorneys, lessees under a ten year lease of officers in Brockton, by this bill in equity seek to require their lessors to provide facilities and services allegedly required under the lease. A master’s report, supplemented and as modified as to damages, was confirmed. The lessors appealed from the final decree, but not from the decree confirming the report. The master found that there had been various breaches by the lessors, which diminished the value of the leasehold to the lessees. The final decree ordered $7,431.25 to be paid by the lessors to the lessees as damages with interest from December 2, 1968. The lessors’ breaches appear not to have been sufficient to amount to a constructive eviction and the lessees remained in possession. The master’s subsidiary findings justified the conclusion that the lessors had not provided proper cleaning services, had not undertaken promised improvements, and had not furnished suitable heat and air conditioning. There is no indication that the damages allowed by the final decree were excessive. A court of equity may fail to grant specific relief and retain a case for the assessment of damages. Charles E. Burt, Inc. v. Seven Grand Corp. 340 Mass. 124, 128-132 (which, in effect, treated Callahan v. Goldman, 216 Mass. 238, 239, as not controlling in equity). See Winchester v. O’Brien, 266 Mass. 33, 38; Am. Law of Property, §§ 3.50, pp. 278-279; 3.51, 3.52. See also A. W. Banister Co. v. P. J. W. Moodie Lumber Corp. 286 Mass. 424, 426-429; Dyecraftsmen, Inc. v. Feinberg, 359 Mass. 485, 488-490; Charlotte Theatres, Inc. v. Gateway Co. Inc. 191 F. Supp. 834, 844 (D. Mass.), reversed on other grounds, 297 F. 2d, 483, 484-485 (1st Cir.); Hall, Landlord and Tenant (Adams and Wadsworth’s 4th ed.) § 242; annotation, 91 A. L. R. 2d 638. Questions concerning the amount of damages and the admissibility of evidence, which the lessors raised before the master, are not sufficiently argued to require any decision by us. S. J. C. Rule, 1:13, 351 Mass. 738.

Decree affirmed with costs of appeal.

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

Two attorneys, lessees under a ten year lease of officers in Brockton, by this bill in equity seek to require their lessors to provide facilities and services allegedly required under the lease. A master’s report, supplemented and as modified as to damages, was confirmed. The lessors appealed from the final decree, but not from the decree confirming the report. The master found that there had been various breaches by the lessors, which diminished the value of the leasehold to the lessees. The final decree ordered $7,431.25 to be paid by the lessors to the lessees as damages with interest from December 2, 1968. The lessors’ breaches appear not to have been sufficient to amount to a constructive eviction and the lessees remained in possession. The master’s subsidiary findings justified the conclusion that the lessors had not provided proper cleaning services, had not undertaken promised improvements, and had not furnished suitable heat and air conditioning. There is no indication that the damages allowed by the final decree were excessive. A court of equity may fail to grant specific relief and retain a case for the assessment of damages. Charles E. Burt, Inc. v. Seven Grand Corp. 340 Mass. 124, 128-132 (which, in effect, treated Callahan v. Goldman, 216 Mass. 238, 239, as not controlling in equity). See Winchester v. O’Brien, 266 Mass. 33, 38; Am. Law of Property, §§ 3.50, pp. 278-279; 3.51, 3.52. See also A. W. Banister Co. v. P. J. W. Moodie Lumber Corp. 286 Mass. 424, 426-429; Dyecraftsmen, Inc. v. Feinberg, 359 Mass. 485, 488-490; Charlotte Theatres, Inc. v. Gateway Co. Inc. 191 F. Supp. 834, 844 (D. Mass.), reversed on other grounds, 297 F. 2d, 483, 484-485 (1st Cir.); Hall, Landlord and Tenant (Adams and Wadsworth’s 4th ed.) § 242; annotation, 91 A. L. R. 2d 638. Questions concerning the amount of damages and the admissibility of evidence, which the lessors raised before the master, are not sufficiently argued to require any decision by us. S. J. C. Rule, 1:13, 351 Mass. 738.

Decree affirmed with costs of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 N.E.2d 608, 361 Mass. 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-mason-mass-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack