Keefe v. Flynn
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract. The declaration alleged that David O’Connell was employed by the defendant to erect a building upon the premises of the defendant, according to the terms of a certain contract in writing in the possession of the defendant, and after the execution of the contract, and after O’Connell had commenced to perform his part thereof, on September 9, 1872, O’Connell assigned and made over to the plaintiff, by an instrument in writing, all sums of money then due and to become…
Read the full summary
Contract. The declaration alleged that David O’Connell was employed by the defendant to erect a building upon the premises of the defendant, according to the terms of a certain contract in writing in the possession of the defendant, and after the execution of the contract, and after O’Connell had commenced to perform his part thereof, on September 9, 1872, O’Connell assigned and made over to the plaintiff, by an instrument in writing, all sums of money then due and to become due him from the defendant, for the erection of the building according to the contract; that the plaintiff thereupon…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, J.
The allegations of the plaintiff’s declaration are, that O’Connell made to him an assignment, of which a copy is annexed; that he notified the defendant thereof; and that the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff, under said assignment, such sums as should become due to O’Connell from him. It cannot fairly be construed as alleging a promise by the defendant to pay any sum not included in the assignment.
It is true, as claimed by the plaintiff, that if he had a valid assignment by O’Connell, of any sum due or which would become due under an existing contract with the defendant, and the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burrows v. GloverMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- Chapin v. PikeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Segee v. DownesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887