Legal Opinion
Paul v. Wilbur
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 8, 1905PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
[After the foregoing statement of the case.] We are of opinion that the exceptions must be overruled. It was of no consequence whether the plaintiff made out a case on the facts found by the auditor apart from the additional facts put in evidence at the trial. That exception must be overruled for that "reason.
There is no question of the law on which the plaintiff’s right of recovery depends. The rule is stated with great accuracy by Morton, J. in Pew v. Gloucester National Bank, 130 Mass. 391. He there says, at p. 395: “To render such party liable as a debtor under an implied promise, it must…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pew v. First National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Furbish v. GoodnowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Griffin v. CunninghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Bartlett v. Mystic River Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Davis v. WilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Colpitts v. L. C. Fisher Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Hammond Coal Co. v. LewisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- George Lawley & Son Corp. v. BuffMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Kahn v. WaldmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Hayes v. GuyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.