Legal Opinion

Coombs v. Beede

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided May 7, 1896PublishedCited by 14 opinions

On Motion and Exceptions by Plaintiee. The case is stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.

It is not questioned that the plaintiff, a professional architect, was employed by the defendant to prepare plans and specifications for a house which the defendant intended to have built for himself in the city of Lewiston. On the trial of this action, brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for services rendered by him in such employment, the defendant sought to establish that, although certain services were rendered by the plaintiff, such services were not beneficial to him for the reason that they were performed in a manner contrary to his express direction and wishes.

In an…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. SME Industries, Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Associates, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Telak v. MaszczenskiCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1968
  3. City of Mounds View v. WalijarviSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
  4. Pittman Construction Co. v. City of New OrleansLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. City of Eveleth v. RubleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API