White v. Randall

26 N.E. 1071, 153 Mass. 394, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 296
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 28, 1891·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Field, C. J.

We think that the construction given by the presiding justice of the Superior Court to the written agreement declared on was correct. The defendant had the option either to pay to the plaintiff for the .assignment of his interest in the seller’s patent, $1,500, and to make over to him $50,000 of the [396] capital stock of a company to be formed, or to pay him $5,000; but the defendant promised to do one or the other only “ after a full and complete test has been made of aforesaid named invention, and the same proves entirely satisfactory to me, and a stock company has been formed as the result of said invention.” Even if the formation of the stock company was not a condition precedent to the performance of the promise to pay $5,000, if the defendant elected to pay $5,000, yet we think that the other provisions we have cited were conditions precedent to the performance of that promise. Exceptions overruled.

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

White v. Randall, 26 N.E. 1071, 153 Mass. 394, 1891 Mass. LEXIS 296 (Mass. 1891).

26 N.E. 1071 (White v. Randall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weinstein v. Miller
144 N.E. 387 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Fried v. Singer
136 N.E. 609 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Humble & McLendon v. Wyatt
182 S.W. 610 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1916)
Handy v. Bliss
90 N.E. 864 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
C. W. Hunt Co. v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
85 N.E. 446 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Lockwood Manufacturing Co. v. Mason Regulator Co.
66 N.E. 420 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)