Staples v. City of Somerville

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: KNOWLTON, J.
• Citation: Staples v. City of Somerville, 176 Mass. 237, 57 N.E. 380 (Mass. 1900)
• Decision Date: 18 May 1900
• Parties: STAPLES v. CITY OF SOMERVILLE et al.

176 Mass. 237

57 N.E. 380

STAPLES v. CITY OF SOMERVILLE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 18, 1900

COUNSEL

J. R. Dunbar and F. E. Dunbar, for plaintiff.

T. E Grover and Fred Joy, for defendant John Harrington.

John J Higgins, for defendants Berry & Ferguson, McCarthy, and Sanborn, assignee.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, J.

The principal question in this case is whether the equitable ownership of the money afterwards earned under the contract passed to the defendant by the assignment from his son Edward F. Staples, and by such recognition of the assignment and of his action under it as appears in the facts before us. The contract was to erect a school house for the city of Somerville. The American Surety Company was a surety for Edward F. Staples upon a bond for the faithful performance of the contract, and the plaintiff gave a bond to the American Surety Company to indemnify it against loss from its undertaking as surety. Edward F. Staples began the work, but was unable to finish it. It was suggested to the plaintiff by the city solicitor of Somerville and others that he should assume charge of the work for his own protection, and thereupon, on April 10, 1897, an assignment was made from his son to him of the contract, and of all moneys, benefits, and emoluments to be derived therefrom. Notice of the assignment was given to the city of Somerville on Paril 21st, and the assignment was afterwards recorded in the office of the city clerk in Somerville, and in the office of the city clerk in Lowell, where the plaintiff lived. By the terms of the contract, it was not assignable without the written consent of the city. The city might have refused to recognize the assignment, or to have any dealings with the plaintiff under it. Pike v. City of Waltham, 168 Mass. 581, 47 N.E 437. Although no consent to the assignment was ever given in writing by the representatives of the city, the plaintiff went on under it without objection from the city, and completed the contract at his own expense, and the building was accepted by the city. He has received payments from the city on account of his work to the amount of $10,500, which were made by checks payable to the order of himself and his son Edward F. Staples, and were receipted for by their joint receipts. The city appeared in this suit, and offered to pay the balance of $4,000 in its hands to such party as is equitably entitled thereto, and asked that the parties be required to interplead, and that the court order and decree to whom the...