Skilton v. R.H. Long Cadillac La Salle Co.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1929 |
| Citation | 164 N.E. 652,265 Mass. 595 |
| Parties | SKILTON v. R. H. LONG CADILLAC LA SALLE CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Hammond, Judge.
Suit by Nathalie S. Skilton against the R. H. Long Cadillac La Salle Company. From the decree, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
M. T. Hall, of Boston, for appellant.
W. B. Leach, Jr., of Boston, for appellee.
By three instruments executed at the same time, parts of the same transaction, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the conditional sale of a sedan motor vehicle. One of the documents is called a ‘lease’ and provided for the conditional sale of the sedan to the plaintiff at the price of $3,136. The other documents are the ‘contract’ and a note for $1,936. The paper spoken of as the ‘contract’ contained a stipulation that a coupé automobile would be taken in trade, for which there was to be credited to the plaintiff $1,200; ‘Notice of 30 days to be given Mr. Skilton before we take the car.’ The lease did not contain such a provision.
The master found that after the parties had signed the paper called the ‘contract’ and before the ‘lease’ was signed, the plaintiff's agent directed the defendant's attention to the fact that the ‘lease’ did not mention that the coupé was to be taken and a credit of $1,200 given; that thereupon the defendant's agent said that for purposes of banking and discounting ‘said note the defendant could not have said clause in the ‘lease.” The master also found that the plaintiff's agent objected to signing the ‘lease’ unless it was understood that the ‘contract’ governed, and upon being assured that it did, the plaintiff's agent signed the ‘lease’ and note; that the defendant has never given the plaintiff thirty days' notice of its intention to take the coupé; that on November 1, 1927, the plaintiff did not tender payment on the note, the defendant having notified her, on October 10, that it refused to take the coupé automobile; and that on December 6 the defendant replevied the sedan.
In the superior court a decree was entered requiring the defendant to deliver the sedan to the plaintiff, and directing the plaintiff to deliver to the defendant the coupé mentioned in the ‘contract’ and to pay the defendant $736, and interest; the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff $300 as damages, and costs.
[1][2] The three documents were executed together as parts of the same transaction. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mansfield v. Lang
...In order to interpret the contract, the instruments entered into by the parties should be read together. Skilton v. R. H. Long Cadillac La Salle Co., 265 Mass. 595, 597, 164 N.E. 652. Am. Law Institute, Restatement, Contracts § 235(c)and cases cited. Construing the instruments together, it ......
-
Refrigeration Discount Corp. v. Catino
...together in the setting in which they were employed in order to ascertain the intent of the parties. Skilton v. R. H. Long Cadillac La Salle Co., 265 Mass. 595, 597, 164 N.E. 652; Baker v. James, 280 Mass. 43, 46-47, 181 N.E. 861; Bigelow v. Lawyers Mortgage Investment Corp. of Boston, 320 ......
-
First Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Airedale Ranch & Cattle Co.
... ... James, 280 Mass. 43, 181 N.E. 861; Skilton v. R. H ... Long Cadillac La Salle Co., 265 Mass. 595, ... ...
-
Friendly Consumer Discount Co. v. Foell
...90 A.2d 505 (App.Div.1952), a suit on a note, certification denied 10 N.J. 343, 91 A.2d 448 (1952); Skilton v. R. H. Long Cadillac L.S. Co., 265 Mass. 595, 164 N.E. 652 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1929); Restatement of Contracts § 235(c); 3 Corbin, Contracts, (1951) § 549; 3 Williston, Contracts (Rev. ed. ......