Vass v. Wales
| Decision Date | 28 June 1880 |
| Parties | William J. Vass v. Elizabeth A. W. Wales |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Contract upon an agreement in writing. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, the substance of which appears in the opinion.
Exceptions sustained.
J Nickerson, for the defendant.
L. M Child, for the plaintiff.
1. The defendant leased to the plaintiff for the term of five years certain land and greenhouses, by an indenture which contained the covenant that the lessee would give up the premises to the lessor at the end of the term in as good order and condition "as the same now are or may be put into by the lessor." At the same time, the lessor executed the agreement sued on, which refers in terms to the lease, and was delivered to the lessee with the lease, wherein she binds herself to make forthwith certain repairs upon the premises. Both papers were parts of the same transaction, and the court properly ruled that there was a sufficient consideration for the agreement.
2. The agreement contained the provision that, in case of dispute between the parties whether certain of the repairs, which the lessor was bound to make, were sufficient, the question should be referred to an umpire. The refusal of the court to rule that the plaintiff could not maintain his action, on that portion of his claim for damages, is not open to exception. No such question is raised in the answer; and if it were, it could be sustained only on the ground, that the agreement to refer ousts the court of jurisdiction, so far as these particular damages are concerned. And such an agreement would be invalid. Rowe v. Williams, 97 Mass. 163. Pearl v. Harris, 121 Mass. 390. Evans v. Clapp, 123 Mass. 165.
3. The remaining exception presents more difficulty. The end of one of the greenhouses abutted against the side of a barn, which was a part of the demised premises though not of the greenhouse itself. The plaintiff contended that, under the clause in the agreement providing that the greenhouses should be put "generally in good working order," the defendant was bound to place rails, bridges, or guards on the roof of the barn to protect the greenhouse from snow and ice which might slide from the roof.
The words of this clause would seem to relate solely to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Finnigan
...Ch. 514; Hastings v. Lovejoy, 140 Mass. 261, 265, 2 N.E. 776, 54 Am. Rep. 462; Thomas v. Barnes, 156 Mass. 581, 31 N.E. 683. See Vass v. Wales, 129 Mass. 38. If, it, the defendant had gone forward, either with or, after reasonable notice, without the assent of the plaintiff, he could have r......
-
Rosenblum v. Springfield Produce Brokerage Co.
...the parties. If that be the situation, this clause hardly can be enforced under our decisions. Pearl v. Harris, 121 Mass. 390 . Vass v. Wales, 129 Mass. 38 . Wood Humphrey, 114 Mass. 185 . White v. Middlesex Railroad, 135 Mass. 216. Rowe v. Williams, 97 Mass. 163 . Reed v. Washington Fire &......
-
Reed v. Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...action at law or a suit in equity. Rowe v. Williams, 97 Mass. 163. Wood v. Humphrey, 114 Mass. 185. Noyes v. Marsh, 123 Mass. 286. Vass v. Wales, 129 Mass. 38. v. Clapp, 123 Mass. 165. White v. Middlesex Railroad, 135 Mass. 216. The reason generally given is, that such an agreement affects ......
-
White v. Middlesex R. Co.
... ... England Ins. Co. 6 Gray 192. Rowe v ... Williams, 97 Mass. 163. Wood v ... Humphrey, 114 Mass. 185. Pearl v ... Harris, 121 Mass. 390. Vass v ... Wales, 129 Mass. 38. See also Trott v ... City Ins. Co. 1 Cliff. 439; Mansfield v ... Doolin, I. R. 4 C. L. 17 ... If ... ...