St. Johns v. Charles

105 Mass. 262
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1870·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Colt, J.

The contract to cut brush was entire, and nothing was due thereon until its completion. The order was therefore prospective, because, when given, the work had not been finished. It is incapable of any other construction, without defeating its purpose. And as repeatedly held, its effect was to assign to Taft all the money that should be earned under the existing contract. Lannan v. Smith, 7 Gray, 150. Macomber v. Doane, 2 Allen, 541. The rights of Taft under this assignment, after notice, could not be defeated by a payment and discharge from the assignor. Exceptions overruled.

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

St. Johns v. Charles, 105 Mass. 262 (Mass. 1870).

105 Mass. 262 (St. Johns v. Charles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Milton Hospital & Convalescent Home v. Garber
4 Mass. App. Div. 468 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
DeSantis v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
289 Mass. 315 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Engeldinger v. Swift & Co.
233 N.W. 115 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
Goodman v. Zitserman
134 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1926)
Taylor v. Barton Child Co.
228 Mass. 126 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Buttrick Lumber Co. v. Collins
89 N.E. 138 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Citizens Loan Ass'n v. Boston & Maine Railroad
82 N.E. 696 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Merchants' & Miners' National Bank v. Barnes
47 L.R.A. 737 (Montana Supreme Court, 1896)
Lee v. Robinson
5 A. 290 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1886)