Munroe v. Perkins
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Indebitatus assumpsit for work done, materials found, money paid, Sic., brought against the defendant jointly with William Payne, who died after the action was commenced.* At the trial before the chief justice it appeared, that in 1821 the plaintiff was employed by Perkins and Payne to build a hotel at Nahant, which was begun in that year and finished in 1823. The general defence was, that there was a special contract, and that the work had been paid for according to the…
Read the full summary
Indebitatus assumpsit for work done, materials found, money paid, Sic., brought against the defendant jointly with William Payne, who died after the action was commenced.* At the trial before the chief justice it appeared, that in 1821 the plaintiff was employed by Perkins and Payne to build a hotel at Nahant, which was begun in that year and finished in 1823. The general defence was, that there was a special contract, and that the work had been paid for according to the terms of that contract. For the purposes of this case it was admitted, that the amount of expenditures made and incurred by…
1Per curiam
The verdict of the jury has established the fact, if the evidence was legally sufficient, that the defendant, together with Payne, made the promise declared on. The defence set up was, that the work was done and the materials were furnished on a special contract under seal, made by the defendant and Payne on behalf of themselves and other subscribers to the hotel ; and such a contract was produced in evidence. The main question is, whether, there being this contract under seal, for a stipulated sum, an action lies on a general assumpsit for the amount which the building actually cost; which…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Blood v. GoodrichNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Delacroix v. BulkleyNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Vicary v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Keating v. PriceNew York Supreme Court · 1799
- Sinard v. PattersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1834
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Blakeslee v. Board of Water CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Bernard Litman v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
- Angel v. MurraySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1974
- United States ex rel. Davies v. Blauner Const. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941
- Wilson v. People's Gas Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.