Simmons v. Lawrence Duck Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for work done and materials furnished. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Oolbwrn, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed ; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
The plaintiff’s declaration as amended contained four counts. The first is in the nature of a common count for work done; the second is a count on an account annexed, and the account annexed includes items from November 1871 to July 30, 1872; the third count, after setting forth that the parties executed a contract in writing, a copy of which is annexed, and is dated June 15,1872, alleges that the plaintiff was induced to execute this contract by fraudulent misrepresentations of facts by the defendant, and that he was not bound by it, but was entitled to recover what the labor performed and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Stoops v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Fitzgerald v. AllenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Mullaly v. AustinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Cullen v. SearsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Farnsworth v. BoardmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Long v. Inhabitants of AtholMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Sandler v. ElliottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
- Homer v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Gerrish Dredging Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Foley v. John H. Bates Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.