Morrill & Whiton Const. Co. v. City of Boston
| Decision Date | 23 June 1904 |
| Citation | 186 Mass. 217,71 N.E. 550 |
| Parties | MORRILL & WHITON CONST. CO. v. CITY OF BOSTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Geo M. Reed, for appellant.
Andrew J. Bailey, for appellee.
Under the building contract entered into between the parties, as the plaintiff went forward in the performance of its part of the undertaking, a dispute arose whether bye the terms of the agreement it was required to plaster the building; and an arrangement was then effected by which it was done, with the provision that whether the plaintiff was entitled to extra compensation, or must be content to accept the round sum specified in the contract, was a question that should be left open for determination in the suit now before us. Its solution depends on the construction of the contract and, if the intention of the parties can be ascertained, it must control; and for that purpose the whole contract is to be considered, rather than an inquiry that is limited to the part relied on by the plaintiff to support its contention. For this purpose the order in which the various clauses and divisions are arranged furnishes little aid, for the modifications made in that part called 'Specifications of the Contract,' precede section 2, which contains the phrase 'furnish and do everything required therefor except the plastering, and the parts of the heating and ventilating and plumbing system,' on which the plaintiff relies for exemption and relief, and these changes contain a specific requirement for the plastering of the ceilings and the walls with a designated number of coats, or otherwise as called for, while section 6, to which this change refers follows section 2, and the original specification, with its modification, is each classed under the general description of 'lathing and plastering.' If the language of either section had contained the only reference to the subject, no difficulty would arise, but, both being in the same agreement, they are inconsistent, and cannot be reconciled; yet it does not follow that the plaintiff can recover.
The main object to be accomplished is stated in section 2, which requires the plaintiff to 'erect and complete a municipal building'; and the careful details provided for the kind and quality of the materials to be used, including those for which this suit is brought, makes it reasonable to suppose that these specifications would not have...
To continue reading
Request your trial