Weed v. Clogston
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against the copartnership of Clogston, Parker & Gordon, for a balance of money alleged to remain due to the plaintiff, after demand, in the hands of the defendants, out of the proceeds of the sales of five of six sole-cutting machines built by them under a written contract signed by the parties and running as follows: “ We, Clogston, Parker & Gordon, hereby agree to build for Samuel S. Weed, six sole-cutting machines from patterns fur» nished by him, for the sum of…
Read the full summary
Contract against the copartnership of Clogston, Parker & Gordon, for a balance of money alleged to remain due to the plaintiff, after demand, in the hands of the defendants, out of the proceeds of the sales of five of six sole-cutting machines built by them under a written contract signed by the parties and running as follows: “ We, Clogston, Parker & Gordon, hereby agree to build for Samuel S. Weed, six sole-cutting machines from patterns fur» nished by him, for the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars each, the work to be well executed in every respect, and the machines to bp delivered in…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
Nothing in the contract can warrant the construction contended for by the plaintiff, that the defendants are bound to settle for the proceeds of each machine separately, and pay over the excess above the cost of that machine, leaving unpaid their work and expenditures upon other machines under the same contract. It is only “ the balance that may be in their hands,” after they are “ reimbursed for the cost of building the said machines as above,” that is to be paid over to Weed. The construction contended for should be adopted only upon language clearly indicating that such was the intent of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Clark v. WestAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Barrows v. FullerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Hardwick v. McClurgColorado Court of Appeals · 1901
- Hardwick v. McClurgColorado Court of Appeals · 1901