Ricciardone v. Carvelli
| Citation | 134 N.E.2d 905,334 Mass. 228 |
| Parties | Louis F. RICCIARDONE and others v. G. Robert CARVELLI and another. G. Robert CARVELLI and another v. Louis F. RICCIARDONE and others. |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1956 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
John J. Crimmins, Boston, for plaintiffs.
No argument or brief for defendants.
Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING and WILLIAMS, JJ.
These are two actions of contract which were tried together. In one, the plaintiffs seek to recover from the trustees of the Stoneham Realty Trust the balance alleged to be due them for the installation of a steam boiler on premises owned by the trustees. In the other, a cross action, the plaintiffs (original defendants) seek to recover from the defendants (original plaintiffs) for breach of contract in connection with the installation of the boiler. For convenience the original plaintiffs and defendants will hereinafter be referred to as the contractors and the trustees respectively.
There was evidence of the following: The contractors agreed with the trustees to install a steam boiler on the latter's premises which consisted of two old buildings with two cellars, in each of which was a boiler. The new boiler was to replace the two old boilers. The contractors were 'to utilize the existing pipes, returns, radiators, etc., wherever possible.' Part of the agreement was verbal and part in writing. The written portion recited that the 'system was to be zoned' so that there would be one zone for the first and second floor levels, and another zone for the third floor. According to the contractors, they were told to do a good job and to use their judgment, when necessary. But the trustees' evidence was otherwise. The contractors also introduced evidence to the effect that a change in the zones was agreed to, but the trustees deny that such an agreement was made. After the boiler was installed, occupants of the building heard a 'knocking and banging' in the pipes, and the trustees brought this to the attention of the contractors. The trustees later discovered that the zoning was different from that called for by the agreement. An expert testified that the work was improperly done, and gave estimates of what it would cost to correct it. The contract price was $2,140, of which $1,900 was paid, leaving a balance of $240. The trustees were willing to pay this balance if the contractors corrected the defects in the work. The judge took a view.
In the main action the judge found for the trustees. In the cross action she found for the trustees in the sum of $725. She made findings of fact which include the following: Under the agreement entered into by the parties the first and second floors were to be joined in one zone, and the third floor was to be put into another zone. The third floor, however, was not zoned separately, and the failure to do this constituted a substantial deviation from the terms of the agreement. The boiler was incorrectly installed and there were 'various other unworkmanlike matters connected with the job--including the size and pitching of some of the pipes, * * * the size of the return lines, the placement of the valves and omission of a T to put on an elbow.' There was an 'excessive amount of thumping and banging in the pipes and radiators' which caused much disturbance to the trustees' tenants. The trustees, without success, on many occasions requested the contractors to remedy the defects.
The questions for decision arise out of certain requests for rulings presented by the contractors. In the main action the requests were: In the cross action the request was: The judge denied all of these requests. A report to the Appellate Division was dismissed and the contractors appealed.
There was no error.
We shall deal first with the requests in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quality Finance Co. v. Hurley
...v. Heath, 292 Mass. 293, 298-299, 198 N.E. 175. See Perry v. Hanover, 314 Mass. 167, 173-176, 50 N.E.2d 41; Ricciardone v. Carvelli, 334 Mass. 228, 231, 134 N.E.2d 905. 2. The conditional sale agreement upon which the plaintiff seeks to recover is not in form a promissory note and is nonneg......
-
Puffer v. City of Beverly
...in the light of the facts actually found by him. See Perry v. Hanover, 314 Mass. 167, 173-175, 50 N.E.2d 41; Riccicardone v. Carvelli, 334 Mass. 228, 231, 134 N.E.2d 905; M. DeMatteo Constr. Co. v. Commonwealth, 338 Mass. 568, 585, 156 N.E.2d 659. Cf. Bresnick v. Heath, 292 Mass. 293, 298-2......
-
Maverick Constr. Mgmt. Serv. Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. Inc.
...payment. Id. at 623, 800 N.E.2d 1038, citing Glazer v. Schwartz, 276 Mass. 54, 57, 176 N.E. 613 (1931), and Ricciardone v. Carvelli, 334 Mass. 228, 230, 134 N.E.2d 905 (1956). Maverick stresses that our case does not include a general contractor's wilful default or an owner's formal termina......
-
Bloomsouth Flooring Corporation v. Boys' and Girls' Club of Taunton Incorporated, SJC-09048 (Mass. 12/30/2003)
...(1931) ("where the default is wilful there can be no recovery either on the contract or on a quantum meruit"). See also Ricciardone v. Carvelli, 334 Mass. 228, 230 (1956). Nor is there any argument that Warfield performed substantially under the contract so as to justify further payment. Th......