Auringer v. Cochrane
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for the value of wearing apparel and work and material furnished by the plaintiffs, who were dressmakers, to the defendant’s daughter. Writ dated February 25, 1914. In the Superior Court the action was heard by Aiken, C. J., without a jury. The material evidence is described in the opinion. The Chief Justice found for the plaintiffs in the sum of $1,315.44 with interest from the date of the writ; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.
The plaintiffs are dressmakers, who sue for gowns and hats furnished to the defendant’s daughter while a member of his household. It having been found by the trial judge that “neither the goods furnished nor the work done were necessaries; they were not needed for the health or comfort of the daughter, and the defendant had supplied and was ready to supply apparel suitable and sufficient for her welfare and proper and befitting the family’s social and financial position,” the plaintiffs cannot recover unless there was evidence of an express or implied contract.
The evidence that when the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Foster v. RockwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Sturtevant v. WallackMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Pettey v. BenoitMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Lamson v. VarnumMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Niles v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
3Cited by19 opinions
- Posell v. HerscovitzMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Boice-Perrine Co. v. KelleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Milmore v. LandauMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Rex Lumber Co. v. Acton Block Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1990
- Lajoie v. MillikenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.