Sawtelle v. Drew
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for breach of a written agreement to hire the plaintiff’s house. The answer contained a general denial, and alleged that the agreement was “ based upon conditions, stipulations and promises ” made by the plaintiff, both before and after making the agreement, that the house should be cleansed, and that it was not so cleansed.
Read the full summary
Contract for breach of a written agreement to hire the plaintiff’s house. The answer contained a general denial, and alleged that the agreement was “ based upon conditions, stipulations and promises ” made by the plaintiff, both before and after making the agreement, that the house should be cleansed, and that it was not so cleansed. At the trial in the Superior Court, Gardner, J., against the plaintiff’s objection, permitted the defendant to put in evidence tending to prove “ that a universal custom and usage prevailed in the locality in which said house was situated, by force of which a…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
It is altogether probable that the ruling complained of in this case was wholly immaterial and had no influence upon its decision. It does not, however, so certainly appear upon the *229bill of exceptions as to authorize the court to say that it could have had no such influence. The evidence to which objection is made related to a custom or usage, and it is necessary to apprehend precisely what was the custom which the defendant offered to prove; and it is offered in these words, “ that a universal custom and usage prevailed in the locality in which said house was situated, by force of which a…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Conahan v. FisherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Harrison v. BirrellOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Holmes v. WhitakerOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Howard v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Miller v. WigginsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.