McIntosh v. Hastings
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, to recover forty dollars for carting mortar to a building in Boston, and forty-nine dollars for materials furnished and labor performed and furnished in repairing certain portions of the walls and ceilings thereof.
Read the full summary
Contract, to recover forty dollars for carting mortar to a building in Boston, and forty-nine dollars for materials furnished and labor performed and furnished in repairing certain portions of the walls and ceilings thereof. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Thompson, J., it appeared in evidence that the defendant, who proposed to alter and repair an old building and erect a new one on an adjoining lot, employed one Fehmer, an architect, to make the plans and act as superintendent, and the defendant testified that she instructed him not to order any extra work without…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The defendant, desiring to alter and repair a building and erect a new structure on an adjoining lot, employed an architect to make plans and superintend the work of construction. Whether the architect was explicitly instructed not to order any extra work without the defendant’s knowledge and consent, was in dispute at the trial, which was without a jury. The plaintiff contracted in writing to do a portion of the work for a specified price. The action is brought to recover the sum of forty dollars for carting to the building mortar which was used in plastering included in his contract, and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Leverone v. ArancioMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- McNulty v. Keyser Office Building Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1910
- Millen v. GulesianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Inc. Town of Bono v. Universal Tank & Iron WorksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
- Fontano v. RobbinsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1903
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.