Legal Opinion
Laurin v. DeCarolis Construction Co.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided December 30, 1976PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
1. No error has been demonstrated in connection with the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the appointment of the master and to strike his report. The factual assertions of the motion were not supported by affidavit (see Rule 9 of the Superior Court [1974]), and the judge made no finding as to the truth of any of those assertions. Compare Alaimo v. Fredette, ante, 866 (1976). 2. The action is not barred by either of the provisions in the purchase and sale agreement concerning (a) what should happen “[i]f the seller shall be unable to give title or to make conveyance as ...…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McMahon v. M & D BUILDERS, INC.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Hunt v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- H. E. Fletcher Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1966
- Worrall v. . MunnNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Ford v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Laurin v. DeCarolis Construction Co., Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977