St. Johns v. Charles
This text of 105 Mass. 262 (St. Johns v. Charles) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
105 Mass. 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-johns-v-charles-mass-1870.