Legal Opinion
McClintic-Marshall Co. v. Freedman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided February 25, 1931PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.
This is an action to recover the balance due upon a contract to furnish and erect certain structural and *560other steel on a building. The contract price was $20,800 upon which $6,000 has been paid. Claims were made for extras by the plaintiff and for a small sum in recoupment by the defendant, which are not now in controversy. The contract appears to have been in part at least in writing and was in the form of a proposal by the plaintiff accepted by the defendant. It was a proposal to “ furnish and erect the structural steelwork, iron stairs and iron fire escape for ” the proposed building of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Glackin v. BennettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Palmer v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
- Durkin v. CobleighMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Clark v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Fisher v. DoeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Merrimac Chemical Co. v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Howland v. StoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Montuori v. BailenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Kesslen Shoe Co. v. Philadelphia Fire & Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Talbot v. Rednalloh Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.