Sirk v. Ela
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Coktbact, to recover $500, placed in the hands of the defendant, to be applied by him, as the agent of the plaintiff, upon the purchase of certain premises in Boston. Trial in the Superior Court, before Sheldon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows.
Read the full summary
Coktbact, to recover $500, placed in the hands of the defendant, to be applied by him, as the agent of the plaintiff, upon the purchase of certain premises in Boston. Trial in the Superior Court, before Sheldon, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows. It appeared in evidence that one Goodnough wrote a letter to Walter El a, dated May 12,1892, inquiring, “ What will you take for that estate Ho. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Buttrick Place? I have a customer who wants to buy it for cash.” Goodnough at the request of the plaintiff gave $500 to the defendant, and received the following…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
We must take the contract as we find it. There is nothing in it binding the plaintiff to take a conveyance of the property, nor anything which shows that, if he refused to take a conveyance, he was to forfeit the $500. The agreement expressly provides that, if the sale was not completed within one-month, the defendant was to return the money. In the absence of any qualifying words, we must construe that as meaning not completed for any cause by either party. The defendant ex- • pressly stipulates that he does not bind himself, nor “ attempt to bind any parties to the completion of said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sherman v. GalbraithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Roberts v. WhiteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
3Cited by3 opinions
- Clapp v. WilderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- New England Trust Co. v. SpauldingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Durfee House Furnishing Co. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1927