Phillips v. Cornell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover the value of a cargo of ice, and demur-rage for delay in receiving it. The case was sent to an auditor, who found that the defendant had paid for the ice all that was due, except the sum of $99.84, which sum he found to be due, together with $192, as demurrage. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $109; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
Without following the somewhat numerous exceptions of the defendant in the order in which he has presented them, we proceed to discuss those upon which he has relied in argument.
*5471. It is not necessary to determine whether demurrage, or damages for delay in the performance of his contract, in the nature of demurrage, as that term is used in admiralty, could properly have been recovered in this action against the defendant. Such damages were allowed to the plaintiff by the report of the auditor, in the sum of $192. A comparison of this report with the verdict rendered by the jury shows that this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Holmes v. HuntMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
3Cited by7 opinions
- Inhabitants of Wakefield v. American Surety Co. of New YorkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Lovell v. Commonwealth Thread Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Eagle Manufacturing Co. v. HanawayTexas Supreme Court · 1897
- Wyman v. WhicherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- Solomon v. Boylston National BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.