Di Fruscio v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtWhittemore, J.
1. The claim of the plaintiffs under G. L. c. 149, § 29, was a sworn statement within the statute. The statute provides that in order “to obtain the benefit of such security the claimant shall file ... a sworn statement of his claim prior to the expiration of ninety days after the claimant ceases to perform labor or furnish labor, materials . . .. ” The master found that when Di Fruscio for the claiming partnership swore to the claim before a notary, as evidenced by the jurat attached to the claim, he had not signed in the space provided but he had already signed his name in the blank…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- George H. Sampson Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Irving v. Goodimate Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Meads v. EarleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Massachusetts Gas & Electric Light Supply Co. v. Rugo Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- John W. Egan Co. v. Major Construction Management Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1999
- N-Tek Construction Services, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2016
- Fiske's Garden Center, Inc. v. Sydney Construction Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1973
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2019
- Fraser Engineering Co. v. Franchi Group Associates, Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.