Fuller v. Wilde
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against the defendant, as acceptor of the following order for the payment of money: “ Brighton, July 12, 1887. S. J. Wilde, — Please pay G. Fuller & Son one thousand dollars, being amount of second payment due on contract for building house on Foster Street, said payment being due when house is plastered. C. A. Prouty.— July 12, accepted. Samuel J. Wilde.”
Read the full summary
Contract against the defendant, as acceptor of the following order for the payment of money: “ Brighton, July 12, 1887. S. J. Wilde, — Please pay G. Fuller & Son one thousand dollars, being amount of second payment due on contract for building house on Foster Street, said payment being due when house is plastered. C. A. Prouty.— July 12, accepted. Samuel J. Wilde.” Writ dated October 6, 1887. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Staples, J., it was admitted that the contract referred to in the order was a building contract dated May 81, 1887, and signed by Prouty and the defendant,…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
Our consti’uction of the order is, that the money was payable when the amount of the second payment on the contract should become due. It was agreed that the second payment was never earned, and never became due. The order therefore never became payable. See Newhall v. Clark, 3 Cush. 376; Somers v. Thayer, 115 Mass. 163; Proctor v. Hartigan, 143 Mass. 462.
Exceptions sustained.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Proctor v. HartiganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Somers v. ThayerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
3Cited by1 opinion
- Eastern Plumbing Supply Co. v. LevittSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930