Cleary v. Sohier
| Decision Date | 05 April 1876 |
| Citation | 120 Mass. 210 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Lawrence Cleary v. William Sohier & another, trustees |
Suffolk. Contract on an account annexed to recover $ 474, with interest, for work done and materials furnished. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and to this court on appeal, upon an agreed statement of facts in substance as follows:
The plaintiff made an oral contract with Henry Farnum, of whose estate the defendants are trustees, to lath and plaster a certain building on Federal Street for the sum of forty cents per square yard. No agreement was made, and nothing was said, as to terms or times of payment, but only that the work was to be done for forty cents per yard. The plaintiff lathed and put on the first coat of plaster a few days before the great fire of November, 1872, and was ready and willing and in good faith intended to put on the second or skim coat, so called, and would have begun November 11, so to do, when the fire of November 9 and 10 wholly destroyed the building. There was no negligence, default or bad faith on the part of either of the parties, and the fire was an unavoidable casualty. The amount charged by the plaintiff, to wit, $ 474, is a reasonable and proper charge for the part of the work done; and, if the plaintiff is entitled to recover anything, as matter of law, under these facts, he is entitled to recover that sum and interest from November 10, 1872. The plaintiff did not demand said sum until after the fire, and not till some months thereafter, and did no more work under the contract. Farnum died soon after the fire, and the defendants represent him and his estate, and are liable if he was liable.
If the plaintiff was entitled to recover, either under his contract or under a count for work done and materials furnished, judgment was to be entered for the said sum of $ 474 and interest; otherwise, for the defendants.
The Superior Court ordered judgment for the defendants; and the plaintiff appealed.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
B. E. Perry, for the plaintiff.
C. P. Gorely, for the defendants.
OPINION
The building having been destroyed by fire without fault of the plaintiff, so that he could not complete his contract, he may recover under a count for work done and materials furnished. Lord v. Wheeler, 1 Gray 282. Wells v. Calnan, 107 Mass. 514, 517.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ganong v. Brown
...the happening of the event which makes further performance impossible. Butterfield v. Byron, 153 Mass. 517 (12 L. R. A., 571); Cleary v. Soheir, 120 Mass. 210; Lord Wheeler, 1 Gray, 282; Wells v. Calnan, 107 Mass. 514; Cook v. McCabe, 53 Wis. 250; Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 Ill. 18; Ransom v.......
-
Clark v. Till
... ... Without unduly extending this brief, ... some of these authorities will be presented for the ... court's consideration ... Cleary ... v. Sohier, 120 Mass. 210; Steamboat Co. v. Transportation ... Co., 82 S.E. 956; Dame v. Wood, 70 A. 1081; ... Waldheim v. Englewood Hgts ... ...
-
Haynes, Spencer & Co. v. Second Baptist Church
...Cook v. McCabe, 53 Wis. 250; Lord v. Wheeler, 1 Gray, 282; Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 Ill. 18; Garretty v. Brazell, 34 Ia. 100; Cleary v. Sohler, 120 Mass. 210; Whelan v. Creek Co., 27 Hun, 557; Hollis v. Chapman, 36 Tex. 1. (3) When a party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon h......
-
Apahouser Lock and Sec. Corp. v. Carvelli
...to be compensated at the contract rate, including the interest on past due accounts established by the contract. See Cleary v. Sohier, 120 Mass. 210, 211 (1876); Butterfield v. Byron, 153 Mass. 517, 521, 27 N.E. 667 (1891); Perkins Sch. for the Blind v. Rate Setting Commn., 383 Mass. 825, 8......