Davis v. Harrington

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtKNOWLTON
PartiesDAVIS v. HARRINGTON.
Decision Date03 January 1894

160 Mass. 278
35 N.E. 771

DAVIS
v.
HARRINGTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

Jan. 3, 1894.


Appeal from superior court, Plymouth county; Albert Mason, Judge.

Action by Charles G. Davis against Z. Taylor Harrington to recover interest by way of damages for defendant's delay in paying rent due plaintiff. The action was tried on an agreed statement of facts, and, from a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.


Charles [160 Mass. 278]G. Davis, for appellant.

Clarence F. Eldredge, for appellee.


KNOWLTON, J.

This case is submitted on an agreed statement of facts, accompanied by certain letters which are referred to as evidence. If we deal with the agreed statement of facts alone, it appears that “on May 26, 1892, the defendant paid to the plaintiff, for the rent up to April 20, 1892, viz. $200, as per letter hereto annexed, and the plaintiff received the same on May 27, 1892.” The letter referred to, which is thus made a part of the statement, plainly shows that the defendant appropriated this payment, as is stated in the above quotation, to the rent, and thereby paid the whole of it,

[35 N.E. 772]

although he might have been held liable for interest upon it by way of damages for his failure to pay when it was due. There is nothing in the agreed statement which tends to show that the plaintiff received or accepted it in any other way than as payment of the principal of the debt due. The letters, except the one above mentioned, are submitted merely “as evidence, so far as material.” If it was intended that inferences of fact should be drawn from them, [160 Mass. 279]we cannot revise the finding of the superior court upon the whole case, except upon the ground that there was nothing in the agreed statement or evidence which would warrant it. Railroad Co. v. Wilder, 137 Mass. 536-538;Rand v. Hanson, 154 Mass. 87, 28 N.E. 6. The judge must have found that the money paid was appropriated by the defendant when he sent it by letter, and was received by the plaintiff, as a payment of the debt, although it did not cover the interest or costs. We are of opinion that his finding was well warranted by the agreed statement and the evidence. The agreement submitted by the parties, if the letters were not referred to as evidence, would exclude the possibility of any other conclusion. We find nothing in the letters which requires a different finding. The defendant's first letter tends to confirm his theory of the case. The plaintiff's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Auto Flat Car Crushers, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., SJC–11477.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 15, 2014
    ...P.C. v. Norfolk & Dedham Group, 469 Mass. 800, n. 11, 17 N.E.3d 1056, 2014 WL 5149643 n. 11 (2014), quoting Davis v. Harrington, 160 Mass. 278, 280, 35 N.E. 771 (1894). Because “[t]he dispute over [contract] damages ... ha [s] been resolved,” Murphy v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 438 Mass......
  • Morton v. Godfrey L. Cabot, Inc., No. 10119
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 9, 1951
    ...employed in the Bennett case, and is fully supported by decisions directly in point in other jurisdictions. In Davis v. Harrington, 160 Mass. 278, 35 N.E. 771, 772, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that a person who, after suit is brought, accepts payment of the principal, e......
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...proper distinction being that where interest is payable by virtue of a contract it is an integral part of the debt. (Davis v. Harrington, 35 N.E. 771; Ohio v. R. Co., 6 Ohio St. 489.) But where interest is recoverable as damages, it is merely an incident of the principal debt, and follows t......
  • Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Norfolk & Dedham Grp., SJC–11561.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 15, 2014
    ...permitted to reject tender made on first day of trial for breach of contract and pursue his claim to judgment); Davis v. Harrington, 160 Mass. 278, 280, 35 N.E. 771 (1894) (plaintiff who accepted complete tender after filing breach of contract suit “could have preserved his right to interes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Auto Flat Car Crushers, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., SJC–11477.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 15, 2014
    ...P.C. v. Norfolk & Dedham Group, 469 Mass. 800, n. 11, 17 N.E.3d 1056, 2014 WL 5149643 n. 11 (2014), quoting Davis v. Harrington, 160 Mass. 278, 280, 35 N.E. 771 (1894). Because “[t]he dispute over [contract] damages ... ha [s] been resolved,” Murphy v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 438 Mass......
  • Morton v. Godfrey L. Cabot, Inc., No. 10119
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 9, 1951
    ...employed in the Bennett case, and is fully supported by decisions directly in point in other jurisdictions. In Davis v. Harrington, 160 Mass. 278, 35 N.E. 771, 772, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that a person who, after suit is brought, accepts payment of the principal, e......
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 21, 1908
    ...proper distinction being that where interest is payable by virtue of a contract it is an integral part of the debt. (Davis v. Harrington, 35 N.E. 771; Ohio v. R. Co., 6 Ohio St. 489.) But where interest is recoverable as damages, it is merely an incident of the principal debt, and follows t......
  • Barron Chiropractic & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Norfolk & Dedham Grp., SJC–11561.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • October 15, 2014
    ...permitted to reject tender made on first day of trial for breach of contract and pursue his claim to judgment); Davis v. Harrington, 160 Mass. 278, 280, 35 N.E. 771 (1894) (plaintiff who accepted complete tender after filing breach of contract suit “could have preserved his right to interes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT