Globe Discount & Finance Corp. v. Sawyer

• Decision Date: 28 November 1934
• Citation: 288 Mass. 431,193 N.E. 8
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: GLOBE DISCOUNT & FINANCE CORPORATION v. SAWYER et al.

288 Mass. 431

193 N.E. 8

GLOBE DISCOUNT & FINANCE CORPORATION

v.SAWYER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Nov. 28, 1934.

Suit in equity by the Globe Discount & Finance Corporation against Frank Sawyer and others. From a final decree in favor of the plaintiff entered by order of a judge of the superior court, the defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Gray, Judge.

J. Brettler and A. Brettler, both of Boston, for appellants.

S. T. Lakson, of Boston, for appellee.

RUGG, Chief Justice.

This suit is brought to recover damages for breach of a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants Sawyer and Hodson (hereafter called the defendants) and to reach and apply certain property in payment thereof. No issue was raised on the pleadings as to the execution of the contract. By its terms the plaintiff was to sell and the defendants were to buy and pay a stipulated price upon specified terms for certain personal property. Papers were to be deposited in escrow and a partial payment was to be made on January 19, 1933. The transaction was to be consummated at 9 o'clock in the forenoon on January 20, 1933. The case was heard upon oral testimony. All the evidence is reported. The trial judge made these findings: ‘At a conference on January 19, 1933, the parties orally agreed to meet at 9 o'clock the following morning to carry out the agreement referred to in paragraph 2 of the bill of complaint. The plaintiff had theretofore acquired title to the property referred to in the agreement and on January 20 at the appointed time was otherwise able and willing to carry out the contract. The defendants Sawyer and Hodson without legal justification refused to perform the contract and are therefore liable to the plaintiff for the damages resulting from their breach of the contract. I find damages in the sum of six thousand dollars.’ A decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff in conformity to the findings. The defendants appealed.

The findings are abundantly supported by the evidence. They must be accepted as true. The defendants argue that the obligations of the contract were temporarily suspended by the issue of a restraining order against the sale by the plaintiff on a suit against it by some third person. There is no finding touching such restraining order. There was evidence to the effect that no such restraining order was issued, served upon the plaintiff or known to the...