Philip Carey Co. v. Pingree
| Decision Date | 04 March 1916 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | PHILIP CAREY COMPANY v. DAVID H. PINGREE & another, trustees. |
January 19, 1916.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, DE COURCY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.
Contract, What constitutes. Trust, Personal liability of trustee.
If two persons, who are the trustees of a real estate trust, make a contract in writing for work and material to be furnished to them and sign the contract with the word "trustees" after their names, they are none the less on this account liable on the contract personally.
C. W. Noyes, J. R. Wellman & C. H. Gilmore, for the defendant Pingree, submitted a brief.
C. A. Castle, for the defendant Townsend, submitted a brief. J. B. Jacobs, for the plaintiff.
This is an action for work and material. The defendants are trustees of the Melrose Real Estate Trust. They contend that they are not liable, because the work and material were furnished to the trust and the contract was signed by them not, as individuals, but as trustees. At the trial, against the exception of the plaintiff, the defendants introduced evidence of an oral agreement, made before the written contract was signed, by which the plaintiff agreed not to look to the defendants for payment.
The jury found in answer to a question, that there was no such oral agreement, and also found for the plaintiff. The case is here on a report made by the judge [*] at the request of the defendants, which is in substance, that if no error of law appears, judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff.
The defendants attempted to prove that there was this oral agreement, earlier in date than the written. Even if this evidence were admissible, they cannot now complain of any error of law, since the jury found, as a fact, that there was no such agreement.
By adding the word "trustee" to their names, the defendants did not exempt themselves from personal responsibility, nor did they, by such a signature, provide that the plaintiff was to look solely to the trust estate. Carr v. Leahy, 217 Mass. 438 .
According to the terms of the report, judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff, for the sum of $725.71 and interest from the date of the verdict.
So ordered.
---------
Notes:
[*] Bell, J.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawthorne v. Austin Organ Co.
...196-198; Allegheny Tank Car Co. v. Culbertson (D. C.) 288 F. 406; Hussey v. Arnold, 185 Mass. 202, 70 N. E. 87; Philip Carey Co. v. Pingree (1916) 223 Mass. 352, 111 N. E. 857; Equitable Trust Co. v. Taylor (1928) 330 Ill. 42, 161 N. E. 62, 64; Feldman v. Preston (1916) 194 Mich. 352, 160 N......
-
Larson v. Sylvester
...to others. Magallen v. Gomes (Mass.) 183 N. E. 833;Gardiner v. Rogers, 267 Mass. 274, 278, 166 N. E. 763;Philip Carey Co. v. Pingree, 223 Mass. 352, 111 N. E. 857;Mayo v. Moritz, 151 Mass. 481, 24 N. E. 1083. Compare Cochrane v. Forbes, 265 Mass. 249, 255, 256, 163 N. E. 848;Hussey v. Arnol......
-
Dolben v. Gleason
... ... contracts to hold him personally liable, Philip Carey Co ... v. Pingree, 223 Mass. 352, 111 N.E. 857,Magallen v ... Gomes, supra, even though ... ...
-
Tebaldi Supply Co., Inc. v. Macmillan
...242 Mass. 124, 136 N.E. 160; Carr v. Leahy, 217 Mass. 438, 105 N.E. 445; Hussey v. Arnold, 185 Mass. 202, 70 N.E. 87; Carey Co. v. Pingree, 223 Mass. 352, 111 N.E. 857; Baker v. James, 280 Mass. 43, 181 N.E. 861.It also seem that the defendant is not relieved under G. L., c. 107, § 42, as I......