Tracey v. Grant

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Tracey v. Grant

137 Mass. 181, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 217

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 9, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 Mass. 181 (Tracey v. Grant) 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

Tracey v. Grant, 137 Mass. 181, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 217 (Mass. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

1. The plaintiff’s demand was for an unliquidated sum. He sought to recover damages for the defendant’s refusal to perform his promise. That promise, as alleged, was to pay a certain sum of money and to transfer a certain number of shares. This promise was alleged to have been broken; and, for the breach, the plaintiff claimed damages. These damages were unliquidated, and could not be ascertained by calculation, but would depend upon a consideration of how much the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the breach of the whole agreement of the defendant. No set-off, therefore, could be allowed. Pub. Sts. c. 168, §§ 3, 7.

2. The plaintiff might properly take the objection at the trial, though no demurrer had been filed. Montague v. Boston § Fairhaven Iron Works, 97 Mass. 502. Hubbard v. Mosely, 11 Gray, 170. Exceptions overruled.

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

C. Allen, J.

1. The plaintiff’s demand was for an unliquidated sum. He sought to recover damages for the defendant’s refusal to perform his promise. That promise, as alleged, was to pay a certain sum of money and to transfer a certain number of shares. This promise was alleged to have been broken; and, for the breach, the plaintiff claimed damages. These damages were unliquidated, and could not be ascertained by calculation, but would depend upon a consideration of how much the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the breach of the whole agreement of the defendant. No set-off, therefore, could be allowed. Pub. Sts. c. 168, §§ 3, 7.

2. The plaintiff might properly take the objection at the trial, though no demurrer had been filed. Montague v. Boston § Fairhaven Iron Works, 97 Mass. 502. Hubbard v. Mosely, 11 Gray, 170. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 Mass. 181, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tracey-v-grant-mass-1884.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack