McGrimley v. Hill
| Decision Date | 14 March 1919 |
| Parties | McGRIMLEY v. HILL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Frederic H. Chase, Judge.
Action on an account for work and labor by Delia G. McGrimley against Sarah T. Hill and trustees. There was verdict for plaintiff for $1,158, as the amount due, and for $437.14, as interest on such amount, and defendants except. Exceptions sustained, and judgment ordered for plaintiff for the amount found by the jury to be the reasonable value of the services rendered defendants by plaintiff after the time of demand for payment.
The judge submitted the following questions for the jury to be answered by them. These questions and the answers returned to them by the jury were as follows:
[232 Mass. 463]1. Was there a contract between the parties under which the defendant was to pay what the services of the plaintiff were reasonably worth? A. Yes.
3. What was the reasonable value of the services rendered by the plaintiff for the entire period? A. $2,059.50.
4. What was the reasonable value of the services rendered after October 15, 1904? A. $1,248.
5. Was the payment of $50 by the defendant on October 15, 1910, a payment on account of indebtedness to the plaintiff? A. Yes.
6. Was the payment of $40 by the defendant on August 15, 1913, a payment on account of indebtedness? A. Yes.
7. Was a demand for payment for her services made by the plaintiff of October 15, 1910? A. Yes.
Forrest F. Collier, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Williams & Copeland, of Boston, for defendants.
It is settled in this commonwealth that in case of a claim for unliquidated damages interest runs from the date of the writ and not from the date of a demand for payment. There is a collection of some of the earlier cases on this point in Childs v. Krey, 199 Mass. 352, 358, 85 N. E. 442. To the cases there collected these may be added: Goff v. Rehoboth, 2 Cush. 475;Thorndike v. Wells Memorial Ass'n, 146 Mass. 619, 16 N. E. 747.
The question which we are called upon to decide in the case at bar is whether this rule applies in a case where the plaintiff worked for the defendant at the defendant's request but without an agreement express or implied as to the price to be paid therefor.
The plaintiff contends that this question was decided in Ford v. Tirrell, 9 Gray, 401, 69 Am. Dec. 297. But that is not so. In Ford v. Tirrell, there was an agreement that the defendant should pay the plaintiff eleven cents a foot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graustein v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
...only from the date of the writ and not from the date of demand. Childs v. Krey, 199 Mass. 352, 358, 85 N.E. 442;McGrimley v. Hill, 232 Mass. 462, 464, 122 N.E. 186;Cochrane v. Forbes, 267 Mass. 617, 420, 166 N.E. 752;Royal Paper Box Co. v. Munro & Church Co., 284 Mass. 446, 451, 188 N.E. 22......
-
Royal Paper Box Co. v. Munro & Church Co.
...Note Co. v. Kidder Press Mfg. Co., 192 Mass. 391, 406, 78 N. E. 463;Childs v. Krey, 199 Mass. 352, 358, 85 N. E. 442;McGrimley v. Hill, 232 Mass. 462, 122 N. E. 186;H. D. Foss & Co., Inc., v. Whidden, 254 Mass. 146, 151, 152, 149 N. E. 679;Cochrane v. Forbes, 267 Mass. 417, 420, 166 N. E. 7......
-
Cochrane v. Forbes
...a claim for unliquidated damages interest runs from the date of the writ and not from the date of demand for payment. McGrimley v. Hill, 232 Mass. 462, 464, 122 N. E. 186;Childs v. Krey, 199 Mass. 352, 358, 85 N. E. 442. That principle in its broad aspect is not of universal application bec......
-
Simpson v. Henry N. Clark Co.
...442;Goldman v. Worcester, 236 Mass. 319, 128 N.E. 410;Bank of Brighton v. Smith, 12 Allen, 243, 251, 252, 90 Am.Dec. 144;McGrimley v. Hill, 232 Mass. 462, 122 N.E. 186;Cochrane v. Forbes, 267 Mass. 417, 166 N.E. 752;Ratner v. Hill, 270 Mass. 249, 253, 170 N.E. 69;Graustein v. H. P. Hood & S......