Duncan v. Cordley
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendants, trustees of the Crescent Land Company, for the construction of two streets, as stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendants, trustees of the Crescent Land Company, for the construction of two streets, as stated in the opinion. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated December 20,1905. On appeal to the Superior Court, there was a trial before Pierce, J. The agreement between the parties was stated in the following two letters: Letter from the plaintiff to the treasurer of the Crescent Land Company: “Roxbury, June 28, 1904. Dear Sir: Confirming our conversation of to-day over the telephone I will say that I hereby…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
This is an action upon a written contract to recover the balance alleged to be due for building two streets on land of the Crescent Land Company in Boston. The streets were to be built up to the level of Commonwealth Avenue, and when finished were to be ten feet wide at the top. The material was to be taken from the company’s land and the work was to be completed on or before July 20, 1904. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and the case is here on exceptions by the defendants to the refusal of the presiding judge to rule that on all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dermott v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
3Cited by5 opinions
- Clear v. PattersonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
- Breen v. CameronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Our Lady of Victory College & Academy v. Maxwell Steel Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1955
- Portable Elevator Manufacturing Co. v. DuttonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1922
- Allen v. BesseMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1984