Phipps v. Mahon
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract. The declaration alleged that the defendants owed the plaintiff the sum of $100, according to an account annexed. The account annexed was for $200, for professional services in making plans, specifications, &c., and superintending the erection of a building in Hopkinton.
Read the full summary
Contract. The declaration alleged that the defendants owed the plaintiff the sum of $100, according to an account annexed. The account annexed was for $200, for professional services in making plans, specifications, &c., and superintending the erection of a building in Hopkinton. The account also contained a credit of $100, leaving a balance due of $100. The answer contained a general denial; admitted the employment of the plaintiff; alleged that it was at a price agreed, namely, $100, which had been paid ; and averred that the work was not well done, and that the services were only worth…
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
The plaintiff relied upon the facts that he had rendered certain valuable service for the defendants at their request, and that such service was reasonably worth the sum of $200, as establishing a contract by the defendants to pay this sum. Such is the legal interpretation of his declaration, which, in form, was an allegation that the defendants owed him a certain sum according to an account annexed. The plaintiff did not claim that any fixed price had been agreed upon, although, had this been the case, such price might be recovered under a similar count. Lowe v. Pimental, 115 Mass. 44. By…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wilder v. CowlesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Lowe v. PimentalMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Gay v. BatesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Nichols v. MunselMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
3Cited by26 opinions
- Wylie v. MarinofskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- United States Potash Co. v. McNuttCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
- Allen v. MurrayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1894
- Starratt v. MullenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Rutland Railway, Light & Power Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1916
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.