Pike v. McIntosh
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, to recover SI,000 upon the following agreement, signed by the defendant: “ I will pay the bill for kiln built at Revere, but will not pay the |250 for right to use it. If I conclude to build more of your kilns I will pay you SI,000 for the right to use them providing you give me a plan of your kilns plain enough to work by.”
Read the full summary
Contract, to recover SI,000 upon the following agreement, signed by the defendant: “ I will pay the bill for kiln built at Revere, but will not pay the |250 for right to use it. If I conclude to build more of your kilns I will pay you SI,000 for the right to use them providing you give me a plan of your kilns plain enough to work by.” The answer was a general denial, and the allegation that the first kiln built did not prove to be as represented by the plaintiff, and an agreement that the second kiln should be built by the defendant as a test of the merits of the plaintiff’s invention. At the…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
So far as the construction of the written agreement declared on is concerned, the case falls within the general ride that it could not be varied by paroi evidence. According to the testimony of both parties, their talk resulted in the written agreement, which is clear in its terms, and must be taken to express the result then arrived at. The first kiln was not satisfactory to the defendant, and he declined to pay for it. The plaintiff’s bill was $1,650 for the cost of the kiln, and $250 more for the right to use it. The parties had a discussion about it, and finally the defendant drew up and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Radigan v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
- Merrigan v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Ottawa & Chippewa Indians of Michigan v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1907
- Tallman v. Town of MarionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960