Henry N. Clark &Amp; Another v. William A. Gordon
Decision Date | 21 November 1876 |
Citation | 121 Mass. 330 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | Henry N. Clark & another v. William A. Gordon |
Suffolk. Contract. The declaration alleged that the plaintiffs demised a certain estate to the Cumberland Stone Company, by deed, a copy of which was annexed and is printed in the margin [*] that said deed was executed by said Cumberland Stone Company, being a corporation, by its president, the defendant, was accepted by said Cumberland Stone Company, and, in pursuance thereof, said Cumberland Stone Company entered into and are still in the possession of said estate; that, in consideration of the demise, the Cumberland Stone Company agreed to pay the rent reserved in said deed, and the taxes on the estate; that said company failed to pay the same, and they were still due; that the defendant agreed, for a good consideration, in writing, under seal, to guarantee to the plaintiffs the payment of said rent and taxes, in and by the following instrument:
The declaration then set forth an account in detail of the rent and taxes due, alleged demand on the Cumberland Stone Company, and notice of the non-payment thereof to the defendant, and that the defendant owed the plaintiffs the several sums set forth.
The defendant demurred, on the ground that the declaration did not state any cause of action against the defendant; and
In the Superior Court, the demurrer was overruled, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs; and the defendant appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
G. H Kingsbury, for the defendant.
A Hemenway, for the plaintiffs, was not called upon.
The agreement purports to be a lease, entered into by the plaintiffs and the Cumberland Stone Company, wherein the plaintiffs are the lessors and the company the lessee. It is executed by the plaintiffs and by William A. Gordon, the defendant. There are no words to indicate in what capacity or in whose behalf Gordon signed it. But the declaration alleges that the company accepted it, and entered at once into occupation of the premises described in the lease, and continued in occupation under the lease at the date of the writ. These allegations are admitted by the demurrer.
Whatever may have been the defects in the original execution of the lease, the company, having treated it as a contract between the plaintiffs and itself, by entering upon and occupying the premises, was bound by its provisions, and became liable to pay the rent and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
W. T. Rawleigh Medical Company, a Corp. v. Laursen
...principal, yet if he accepts and enjoys the benefits of it, his guarantor will be bound. McLaughlin v. McGovern, 34 Barb. 208; Clark v. Gordon, 121 Mass. 330; McConnon & v. Laursen, 22 N.D. 604, 135 N.W. 213; Emerson Mfg. Co. v. Tvedt, 19 N.D. 8, 120 N.W. 1094; Swisher v. Deering, 204 Ill. ......
-
Gross v. Cohen
...under it. He could not object to a ratification by the plaintiff. Coduman v. Hall, 9 Allen, 335;Ripley v. Cross, 111 Mass. 41;Clark v. Gordon, 121 Mass. 330. See Mechem on Agency, §§ 513-524; 21 R. C. L. 922; 5 Am. St. Rep. 109, note. In Massachusetts, instruments executed by one person in ......
-
Gross v. Cohen
... ... option for another year), this does not render the lease ... Ripley v ... Cross, 111 Mass. 41 ... Clark v. Gordon, 121 ... Mass. 330 ... See Mechem on ... ...
-
Hall v. Newhall
...a contract to pay rent the question of title is not relevant to the issue. Lamson & Goodnow Manuf. Co. v. Russell, 112 Mass. 387;Clark v. Gordon, 121 Mass. 330;Carroll v. St. John's Society, 125 Mass. 565. What has been said covers the contentions of the defendant as set forth in his brief.......