Legal Opinion

Cushman v. Richards

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1868PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Contract for the amount of one half of the avails of a mortgage to the Attleborough Bank, which amount the plaintiff alleged was due to him. by virtue of a written contract signed by the defendants, as follows: “ In consideration of our having this day purchased of Bartholomew Cushman eight shares of the stock of the Attleborough Bank, and having received his obligation therefor and power of attorney to transfer the same, we therefore do hereby promise and agree to account…

Read the full summary

Contract for the amount of one half of the avails of a mortgage to the Attleborough Bank, which amount the plaintiff alleged was due to him. by virtue of a written contract signed by the defendants, as follows: “ In consideration of our having this day purchased of Bartholomew Cushman eight shares of the stock of the Attleborough Bank, and having received his obligation therefor and power of attorney to transfer the same, we therefore do hereby promise and agree to account to the said Cushman for one half the proceeds or avails of a certain mortgage held by the bank on the real estate of the…

1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.

The contract must be construed according to the relation of the parties, and the facts existing at the time, with reference to which it was made. The defendants purchased o. *233the plaintiff eight shares of the stock of the Attleborough Bank The parties disagreed as to their value, because the bank held a mortgage from which the vendor believed a considerable sum would be eventually realized, but which the purchasers thought of little value. It was finally agreed that the defendants would purchase the stock at par, and would give a written agreement to account to the plaintiff for one half of…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Spencer v. PringleWyoming Supreme Court · 1937
  2. United States v. RehwaldDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1930
  3. Moody v. Pacific Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
  4. Port of Seattle v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API