Atwood v. City of Boston
| Decision Date | 27 October 1941 |
| Citation | 310 Mass. 70,37 N.E.2d 131 |
| Parties | ATWOOD v. CITY OF BOSTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; J. E. Swift, Judge.
Action of contract by Harrison H. Atwood against the City of Boston to recover a balance alleged to be due plaintiff for services performed under terms of a written agreement. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $34,454.88 and the judge reserved leave, with assent of the jury, to enter a verdict for defendant, and thereafter defendant's motion that this be done was denied, and defendant excepted. On report from the superior court.
Judgment for defendant.
Argued before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, DOLAN, and RONAN, JJ.
K. D. Johnson, M. Chesley, and J. D. Goodman, all of Boston, for plaintiff.
K. Hern, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of Boston, and F. W. Roche, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of Dorchester, for defendant.
This is an action of contract to recover a balance alleged to be due the plaintiff for services performed under the terms of a written agreement, entered into by the parties on November 12, 1929. The case was tried to a jury. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict in its favor. The judge denied this motion, subject to the defendant's exception. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $34,454.88, and the judge reserved leave, with the assent of the jury, to enter a verdict for the defendant. Thereafter the defendant's motion that this be done was denied by the judge and the defendant duly excepted. The case comes before us on the report by the judge of the questions raised by these exceptions of the defendant and by its exceptions to the admission of certain evidence, and to the refusal of the judge to grant certain of its requests for instructions. Under the terms of the report, if the judge's rulings and orders were correct, judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff on the verdict, and if his denial of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict or of its motion for entry of a verdict for it under leave reserved was incorrect, judgment is to be entered for the defendant.
The evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff tends to show the following facts: Under the terms of the contract the plaintiff agreed to render services, as an architect, in connection with the proposed construction of a high school building for girls in the ‘Martin District’ in Boston, in the performance of which he was to make preliminary studies, to submit them to the defendant, to provide working drawings, specifications and bule prints, and to assume the active supervision of all construction work on the building and also of ‘landscape and domestic engineering.’ The contract contained, among others, the following pertinent provisions: * * *’ The total appropriationultimately made for the construction of the building was $1,119,995.71 and that made for ‘plans' was $110,000.1
The plaintiff completed the preliminary studies in accordance with the terms of the contract on or before December 28, 1929. On that date he submitted a bill to the city as follows:
This bill was paid by the defendant on May 21, 1930.
On February 4, 1931, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant the ‘working drawings and specifications ready for contract.’ On March 27, 1931, he presented a bill to bhe city in the following form:
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦”To professional services in the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦preparation of studies, working drawings ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦and specification for the Girls High ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦School, Worthington Street, Martin District¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
¦Roxbury, in...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banaghan v. Dewey
...was. MacDonald v. Kavanaugh, 259 Mass. 439, 156 N.E. 740; Beatty v. Ammidon, 260 Mass. 566, 574, 157 N.E. 702; Atwood v. City of Boston, 310 Mass. 70, 75, 37 N.E.2d 131; Trafton v. Custeau, 338 Mass. 305, 155 N.E.2d 159. The apparatus had been installed, repaired, and maintained by the defe......
-
Canal Elec. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co.
...is affected by findings of fact."); Ober v. National Casualty Co., 318 Mass. 27, 60 N.E.2d 90, 91 (1945); Atwood v. Boston, 310 Mass. 70, 37 N.E.2d 131, 134 (1941); USM Corp. v. Arthur D. Little Sys., Inc., 28 Mass.App.Ct. 108, 546 N.E.2d 888, 893 (1989); Thomas v. Christensen, 12 Mass.App.......
-
Bulpett v. Dodge Associates, Inc.
...for the jury to determine, upon conflicting evidence, what the scope of the agreement between Dodge and CUES was. Atwood v. Boston, 310 Mass. 70, 75, 37 N.E.2d 131 (1941); Trafton v. Custeau, 338 Mass. 305, 307-308, 155 N.E.2d 159 (1959); Banaghan v. Dewey, 340 Mass. 73, 80, 162 N.E.2d 807 ......
-
In re Simon, Bankruptcy No. 92-41246.
...the Court must look behind the language to determine the parties' intent in executing the agreement. See Atwood v. City of Boston, 310 Mass. 70, 73, 37 N.E.2d 131, 134 (1941), citing, Stoops v. Smith, 100 Mass. 63, 66 (1868) (parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of explaining any un......