Clark v. Inhabitants of Russell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover for labor upon roads. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., the plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show a special contract between themselves and the defendants, to put and keep certain roads “ in as good repair as usual,” for one year, for five hundred dollars.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover for labor upon roads. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., the plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show a special contract between themselves and the defendants, to put and keep certain roads “ in as good repair as usual,” for one year, for five hundred dollars. The defendants introduced evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs did not comply with the terms of the contract, but that, by reason of the plaintiffs’ neglect and in order to put the roads in such repair as the contract specified, the defendants were obliged to employ, and did…
1Opinion of the CourtChapman, C. J.
Evidence of the amount necessarily expended by the defendants to put the roads in such order as the contract specified was admissible, because it tended to prove that the contract had not been substantially performed, and also the extent of the damage occasioned by the non-performance. Walker v. Orange, 16 Gray, 193. Moulton v. McOwen, 103 Mass. 587.
Exceptions sustained.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Moulton v. McOwenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
3Cited by4 opinions
- Florence Machine Co. v. DaggettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Gutov v. ClarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Denham v. BryantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Iverson v. PetnovMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1972