Legal Opinion

Di Fruscio v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 4, 1967PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. George H. Sampson Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  2. Irving v. Goodimate Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  3. Assessors of Brookline v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  4. Meads v. EarleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  5. 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

  1. John W. Egan Co. v. Major Construction Management Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1999
  2. N-Tek Construction Services, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2016
  3. Fiske's Garden Center, Inc. v. Sydney Construction Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1973
  4. Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2019
  5. Fraser Engineering Co. v. Franchi Group Associates, Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court · 1998

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API