Searls v. Loring
Decision Date | 26 May 1931 |
Citation | 176 N.E. 212,275 Mass. 403 |
Parties | SEARLS v. LORING. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Marcus Morton, Judge.
Action by George B. Searls, trustee, against Robert M. Loring. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
George B. Searls, of Boston, for plaintiff.
H. W. Sexton, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of contract to recover the balance due on a written contract and for extra work. No question is raised as to the extras. The declaration is upon an account annexed. The first item in that account is ‘Balance on contract for heating and plumbing work $125.00.’ The answer of the defendant contained a generaldenial. It also set out that there was a contract between the parties whereby the plaintiff agreed to furnish the labor and materials declared upon in item 1 of the account annexed to his declaration, and that in various particulars there was failure on the part of the plaintiff to perform, and alleged in recoupment expenses incurred by the defendant in completing the contract as nearly as practicable. It also averred damages arising from defective work of the plaintiff and overpayment by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Parts of the contract printed in the record show that it was The contractor testified in substance that the work was completed about the first of 1929 and was a workmanlike job; that in June, 1929, he saw two leaks in the system, which he agreed to but never did fix, and that he had been paid all due on the contract except $125. There was other testimony from an expert that he had inspected the system and found it a good one as to materials and workmanship; that he saw no leaks, but, if there were leaks, it was not properly constructed and was defective. The owner of the building testified that he moved into the house in February, 1929, and noticed six to eight leaks around the radiators and pipe joints, which were a source of inconvenience to him and necessitated keeping absorbent pads under the valves and joints to prevent staining the floor; that he was unable to cover the pipes in the cellar with asbestos ‘until last winter’ (apparently 1929-30) because of the leaks, and that in his opinion the work had not been completed.
This is in substance all the evidence in the record. There is nothing to show the contract price of the job or the expenditures, if any, due to the leaks, or how long the leaks continued.
The defendant requested instructions to the effect (1) that the plaintiff could not recover upon the contract unless he fully performed it, (2) that the plaintiff could not recover under item 1 of the account annexed unless the hot water system was erected in a workmanlike manner, and (3) unless the job was completed, and (4) that the burden of proof of performance was on the plaintiff. These requests were denied. The charge, so far as here material, was in these words: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lampasona v. Capriotti
... ... 74, 87 N.E. 194; Putnam Hooker Co. v. Hewins, 204 ... Mass. 426, 430, 90 N.E. 983; Hennessey v. Preston, ... 219 Mass. 61, 106 N.E. 570; Searls v. Loring, 275 ... Mass. 403, 406, 407, 176 N.E. 212; ... [296 Mass. 40] ... Zarthar v. Saliba, 282 Mass. 558, 561, 185 N.E. 367 ... Here ... ...
-
Fraser and Wise, P.C. v. Primarily Primates, Inc.
...of honest intention and attempt to perform the contract completely, and in fact substantial performance on it." Searls v. Loring, 275 Mass. 403, 176 N.E. 212, 213 (1931). In addition, a plaintiff cannot recover under this theory merely by supplying services to the defendant. Altman v. Goodm......
-
Beverly Hospital v. Early
... ... Allen v. Burns, 201 Mass. 74, ... 87 N.E. 194; Bowen v. Kimbell, 203 Mass. 364, 369, ... et seq., 89 N.E. 542,133 Am.St.Rep. 302; Searls v ... Loring, 275 Mass. 403, 406, 407, 176 N.E. 212; ... Zarthar v. Saliba, 282 Mass. 558, 561, 185 N.E. 367; ... Gagnon v. Ainsworth, 283 Mass ... ...
-
Zarthar v. Saliba
...as orally modified, for the reason that he had not fully performed it. Allen v. Burns, 201 Mass. 74, 87 N. E. 194;Searls v. Loring, 275 Mass. 403, 406, 407, 176 N. E. 212. The fact that Zarthar took possession on March 1, 1930, did not affect his legal rights resulting from the failure of S......