Legal Opinion
Sipley v. Stickney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 2, 1906PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
[After the foregoing statement of the case.] The defendant relies on the doctrine long established in this Commonwealth and last applied in Homer v. Shaw, 177 Mass. 1, where the earlier cases are collected, namely, that one who voluntarily has failed to complete a piece of work to be done under a special contract for an entire sum is without remedy.
The weight of authority is the same in other jurisdictions; Forman & Co. Proprietary v. The Ship Liddesdale, [1900] A. C. 190; Hansbrough v. Peck, 5 Wall. 497; Scheible v. Klein, 89 Mich. 376; Kohn v. Fandel, 29 Minn. 470; Timberlake v. Thayer, 71…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Smith v. . BradyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Hansbrough v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Heckmann v. . PinkneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Crouch v. . GutmannNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Linch v. Paris Lumber and Grain Elevator Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1891
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Frati v. JanniniMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Chelsea Industries, Inc. v. GaffneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- Service Publications, Inc. v. GovermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1986
- Bowen v. KimbellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Ficara v. BelleauMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.