Mosseau v. Landy
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, to recover for the building of a bank wall on the premises of Mr. William G. Bassett. The first two items of the declaration were as follows : “ To laying 75 perch of stone at $0.70 a perch . $52.50 To 226 perch of stone extra at $0.80 a perch . 180.80 ” At the trial in the Superior Court, before Stevens, J., it appeared that the defendant had the contract for the building of the wall, which was agreed to be in amount seventy-five perches of stone; that the…
Read the full summary
Contract, to recover for the building of a bank wall on the premises of Mr. William G. Bassett. The first two items of the declaration were as follows : “ To laying 75 perch of stone at $0.70 a perch . $52.50 To 226 perch of stone extra at $0.80 a perch . 180.80 ” At the trial in the Superior Court, before Stevens, J., it appeared that the defendant had the contract for the building of the wall, which was agreed to be in amount seventy-five perches of stone; that the plaintiff made a contract with the defendant that he would build the same at seventy-five cents per perch, total, $52.50, the…
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
The only question is whether there was error prejudicial to the defendant in the exclusion of the question put to Bassett as to the value of the extra work done by the plaintiff.
The bill of exceptions fails to show what the answer would have been, or what the defendant offered or expected to prove by it. We cannot say, therefore, that the defendant has been harmed by the exclusion of the question. Farnum v. Pitcher, 151 Mass. 470.
Fxceptions overruled.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Farnum v. PitcherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Magnolia Metal Co. v. GaleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906