Legal Opinion
Bloom, South & Gurney, Inc. v. Mitchell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 31, 1935PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.
The plaintiff, a subcontractor, brings this action of contract against the contractor who, in 1924 and 1925, built a large apartment hotel in Brookline, called Alden Park Manor. The substance of the claim now material is that the failure of the defendant to heat the building caused the plaintiff additional expense for labor and cement in laying cork tile floors.
The auditor, whose findings of fact by agreement were final, allowed the plaintiff $3,132 for additional labor and $2,028.25 for additional cement. The written contract as orally modified required “that the building shall be kept…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Royal Paper Box Co. v. Munro & Church Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- A. W. Banister Co. v. P. J. W. Moodie Lumber Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Ecklund v. EcklundMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- McCormick v. StowellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Egan v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Trade Mutual Liability Insurance v. PetersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. English Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Howland v. StoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Charles E. Burt, Inc. v. Seven Grand Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
- M. L. Shalloo, Inc. v. Ricciardi & Sons Construction, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.