Busell Trimmer Co. v. Coburn
| Decision Date | 19 May 1905 |
| Parties | BUSELL TRIMMER CO. v. COBURN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Richard
D. Ware, for plaintiff.
W. C Cogswell, for defendant.
The contract in question is dated August 4, 1900. In it the plaintiff is called the 'vendor,' and the defendant the 'purchaser.' By the terms of the contract the vendor assigned to the purchaser 'all of the machinery, stock in trade fixtures and effects pertaining to its business, and also all the books and other debts now due and owing to the said vendor, and also all contracts, benefits and advantages which have been entered into by the said vendor, or to which it is or can be entitled.' The purchaser covenanted with the vendor 'that he will at all times hereafter save harmless, and keep indemnified the said vendor from and against all losses, costs, expenses, and damages which may be incurred by reason of any action which shall or may be brought or instituted against the said purchaser, * * * for or in respect of, the said machinery, stock in trade, effects and premises, or for or in respect of the recovery of the several sums of money which by its books appear to be due and owing from the said vendor in respect of the said trade or business, and also from and against the contracts and engagements to which the said vendor appears to be now liable; and also all interest, costs, expenses, losses, claims and demands on account of the same debts, contracts and engagements respectively or otherwise in relation to the premises.'
It appeared in evidence that at the time of the signing of the contract Knight was president of the company, and had been connected with it about 15 years as manager and president. On June 4, 1900, the directors of the plaintiff company elected its officers for the ensuing year, and among them Knight, as president and manager. There was evidence also that Knight sold the manufactures of the company, handled the money, paid the men, looked after the factory, and attended to the entire business; and, further, that at the time of the transfer Knight was receiving a salary of $2,000 a year. The plaintiff offered to show that upon November 20, 1900, Knight brought an action against the plaintiff for salary alleged to have accrued to him after the transfer, for the months of August September, October, and part of November, at the rate of $116.67 per month. The company did not defend the action, and Knight recovered judgment, which judgment was paid by the company. The plaintiff further offered to show that in March, 1901, a further sum was paid by the company to Knight in satisfaction of a claim he made against the company for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.
...178 Mass. 232, 236, 59 N.E. 657,51 L.R.A. 781, 86 Am.St.Rep. 478;Boston v. Brooks, 187 Mass. 286, 73 N.E. 206;Busell Trimmer Co. v. Coburn, 188 Mass. 254, 74 N.E. 334,69 L.R.A. 821;Dunn v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 175 N.Y. 214, 218,67 N.E. 439;White v. Maryland Casualty Co., 139 App.Div. ......
-
Newell Contracting Co v. J. F. &. J. D. Blankenshi P
...161 U. S. 316, 16 S. Ct. 564, 40 L. Ed. 712; Boston v. Worthington, 10 Gray (Mass.) 496, 71 Am. Dec. 678; Busell v. Trimmier, 188 Mass. 254, 74 N. E. 334, 69 L. R. A. 821. The duty of the plaintiff to give reasonable notice to Blankenship was scantily performed. He shows that he notified Bl......
-
Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.
... ... & Rubber Co. v. Kendall, 178 Mass. 232 , 236. Boston ... v. Brooks, 187 Mass. 286 ... Busell Trimmer Co. v ... Coburn, 188 Mass. 254 ... Dunn v. Uvalde Asphalt ... Paving Co. 175 N.Y. 214, ... ...
-
Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co.
... ... Dec. 381) has not been ... distinctly adopted heretofore in this commonwealth ... Busell Trimmer Co. v. Coburn, 188 Mass. 254, 257, 74 ... N.E. 334, 69 L. R. A. 821, relied upon by the ... ...