Sleeper v. Nicholson

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtMORTON
Citation201 Mass. 110,87 N.E. 473
Decision Date25 February 1909
PartiesSLEEPER v. NICHOLSON.

201 Mass. 110
87 N.E. 473

SLEEPER
v.
NICHOLSON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Feb. 25, 1909.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Edgar J. Sherman, Judge.

Action by George T. Sleeper against Joseph Nicholson. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Plaintiff testified that he and defendant went through the latter's house, which he had agreed to exchange, and defendant pointed out certain chairs and stands, which he wanted to keep, but stated that everything would go with the property, to the admission of which testimony defendant objected.


George [201 Mass. 111]V. Phipps, for plaintiff.

Stephen H. Tyng, for defendant.


MORTON, J.

This is an action to recover damages for the breach of a written agreement for the exchange of real estate and personal property of the defendant in Sanbornton, in New Hampshire, for real estate and personal property of the plaintiff in Winthrop in this state. There was a verdict for the plaintiff and the case is here on exceptions[201 Mass. 112]by the defendant to the refusal of the presiding judge to give certain rulings which were requested and to the admission of certain evidence.

The agreement provided amongst other things that the premises belonging to the plaintiff were to be conveyed ‘free from all incumbrances excepting a mortgage of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500),’ and that all the personal property on the premises belonging to the defendant was to be included in the conveyance to be made by him ‘except the piano, and certain pieces to be agreed upon.’ The agreement also contained the following provisions namely: ‘Rents and taxes assessed for the year 190__, shall be apportioned as of the day of the delivery of the deeds,’ and ‘This agreement shall be performed by the parties concurrently on Tuesday, July 25, 1905, at two o'clock p. m. at the office of B. B. Merrill, 415 Old South Building. Possession to be given in each case on August 1, 1905.’ The agreement recites that it was ‘made this 19th day of July, A. D. 1905.’ There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was present at the time and place named for performance with a warranty deed ready for delivery running from himself to the defendant of the real estate in Winthrop free from all

[87 N.E. 474]

incumbrances except the mortgage of $7,500, and including all the personal property not excepted by the agreement, but that the defendant was not present and thereafter gave no reason...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 17 Julio 1923
    ...42 N.E. 1080, 148 N.Y. 558; Higgins v. Eagleton, 50 N.E. 287, 155 N.Y. 466; Carpenter v. Holcomb, 105 Mass. 280; Sleeper v. Nicholson, 87 N.E. 473; Baird Inv. Co. v. Harris, 209 F. 291; Kentucky Warehouse Co. v. Blanton, 149 F. 31.) Oral testimony was inadmissible to vary the terms of the w......
  • Derby Desk Co. v. Conners Bros. Const. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 7 Enero 1910
    ...Coal & Coke Co., 199 Mass. 22, 84 N. E. 1020;Gordon v. Knott, 199 Mass. 180, 85 N. E. 184,19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 762;Sleeper v. Nickerson, 201 Mass. 110, 87 N. E. 473;Jennings v. Puffer, 203 Mass. 534, 89 N. E. 1036;District of Columbia v. Gallaher, 124 U. S. 505, 8 Sup. Ct. 585, 31 L. Ed. 526......
  • LaFond v. Frame
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 8 Mayo 1951
    ...v. Guild, 106 Mass. 29, 30; Davis v. Bean, 114 Mass. 358, 359, which it was the duty of the seller to remove, see Sleeper v. Nicholson, 201 Mass. 110, 112-113, 87 N.E. 473, we think, for present purposes, that the subject was adequately covered by the clause providing for The substantial qu......
  • King v. Allen
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 10 Enero 1980
    ...213, 215-216, 72 N.E. 947 (1905). Boston & Worcester St. Ry. v. Rose, 194 Mass. 142, 149-150, 80 N.E. 498 (1907). Sleeper v. Nicholson, 201 Mass. 110, 112-113, 87 N.E. 473 (1909). Rigs v. Sokol, 318 Mass. 337, 344, 61 N.E.2d 538 3. The defendant's probable inability to convey the quality of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Portner v. Tanner, 1060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 17 Julio 1923
    ...42 N.E. 1080, 148 N.Y. 558; Higgins v. Eagleton, 50 N.E. 287, 155 N.Y. 466; Carpenter v. Holcomb, 105 Mass. 280; Sleeper v. Nicholson, 87 N.E. 473; Baird Inv. Co. v. Harris, 209 F. 291; Kentucky Warehouse Co. v. Blanton, 149 F. 31.) Oral testimony was inadmissible to vary the terms of the w......
  • Derby Desk Co. v. Conners Bros. Const. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 7 Enero 1910
    ...Coal & Coke Co., 199 Mass. 22, 84 N. E. 1020;Gordon v. Knott, 199 Mass. 180, 85 N. E. 184,19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 762;Sleeper v. Nickerson, 201 Mass. 110, 87 N. E. 473;Jennings v. Puffer, 203 Mass. 534, 89 N. E. 1036;District of Columbia v. Gallaher, 124 U. S. 505, 8 Sup. Ct. 585, 31 L. Ed. 526......
  • LaFond v. Frame
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 8 Mayo 1951
    ...v. Guild, 106 Mass. 29, 30; Davis v. Bean, 114 Mass. 358, 359, which it was the duty of the seller to remove, see Sleeper v. Nicholson, 201 Mass. 110, 112-113, 87 N.E. 473, we think, for present purposes, that the subject was adequately covered by the clause providing for The substantial qu......
  • King v. Allen
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 10 Enero 1980
    ...213, 215-216, 72 N.E. 947 (1905). Boston & Worcester St. Ry. v. Rose, 194 Mass. 142, 149-150, 80 N.E. 498 (1907). Sleeper v. Nicholson, 201 Mass. 110, 112-113, 87 N.E. 473 (1909). Rigs v. Sokol, 318 Mass. 337, 344, 61 N.E.2d 538 3. The defendant's probable inability to convey the quality of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT