Weathers v. Jarvis

Decision Date02 April 1936
Citation294 Mass. 227,200 N.E. 886
PartiesWEATHERS v. JARVIS.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Action of contract by Charles D. Weathers against William L. Jarvis. A. district judge found for plaintiff in the sum of $1,100, and from an order of the Appellate Division dismissing such judge's report, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Appellate Division, District Court of Newton, Northern District; Weston, Judge.

E. O'Callaghan, of Boston, for appellant.

W. Herbits and D. B. Jefferson, both of Boston, for appellee.

LUMMUS, Justice.

An administrator filed a petition in a probate court for leave to sell a publishing business to the defendant at private sale for $4,000. Both the plaintiff and the defendant were desirous of buying. At the hearing upon the petition, the plaintiff told the judge that he would pay more.’ How much more, apparently was not stated. The judge suggested that the parties talk the matter over with the administrator. Instead, the defendant promised the plaintiff that if he would make no offer but would permit the defendant to buy for $4,000, the defendant would either give the plaintiff a half interest for $2,000 or pay him $1,000. After the petition had been allowed and the defendant had bought the business without competition for $4,000, he refused to do either. The plaintiff brought this action of contract to recover $1,000 with interest. After a finding for the plaintiff, the Appellate Division dismissed a report, and the defendant appealed.

The defence is that the agreement was invalid as against public policy. In Phippen v. Stickney, 3 Metc. 384, it was held that a promise by one, if another would permit him to buy real estate at auction, to convey part of it to that other, is not invalid, where the parties owned adjoining land and each desired part of the land about to be sold as a whole. It was said in substance, that if the purpose of such an agreement is to prevent fair competition and depress the price, it is invalid; but if the purpose of the agreement is to combine the funds of several to buy what no one wishes to buy alone, or to permit a bid for a parcel offered for sale as a whole where neither party desires more than a part, or any other ‘reasonable and honest purpose,’ the agreement is valid. See, also, Guernsey v. Cook, 120 Mass. 501, 502;Hellier v. Achorn, 255 Mass. 273, 280, 151 N.E. 305, 45 A.L.R. 788. The English law appeared to be more tolerant of the practice of dealers by which one is allowed to buy at auction at a low price and then the real buyer is determined by a ‘knock out’ or private auction afterwards, to the profit of all (Rawlings v. General Trading Co. [1921] 1 K.B. 635; Cohen v. Roche, [1927] 1 K.B. 169), until that practice was forbidden by St. 17 & 18 Geo.V. c. 12. Conversely, as to the effect of the employment of by-bidders upon the obligation of the purchaser, see Curtis v. Aspinwall, 114 Mass. 187, 19 Am.Rep. 332;Rowley v. D'Arcy, 184 Mass. 550, 69 N.E. 325,64 L.R.A. 190.

In the application of the rule stated in Phippen v. Stickney, 3 Metc. 384, some contracts of this general sort have been held invalid, as designed to stifle competition. Gibbs v. Smith, 115 Mass. 592;Schmitt v. Franke, 160 Wis. 347, 151 N.W. 793, Ann.Cas.1917D, 230, and note; Coal & Coke Railway Co. v. Marple, 70 W.Va. 136, 73 S.E. 261, Ann.Cas.1913D, 959,38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 719, and note; Ruis v. Branch, 138 Ga. 150, 74 S.E. 1081,42 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1198, and note. Others have been held reasonable and valid. Carp v. Kaplan, 251 Mass. 225, 228, 146 N.E. 779;Fisher v. Katler, 281 Mass. 340, 183 N.E. 759;Hyer v. Richmond Traction Co., 168 U.S. 471, 478, 479, 18 S.Ct. 114, 42 L.Ed. 547;Starkweather v. Jenner, 216 U.S. 524, 30 S.Ct. 382, 54 L.Ed. 602,17 Ann.Cas. 1167;Hopkins v. Ensign, 122 N.Y. 144, 25 N.E. 306,9 L.R.A. 731;Woodruff v. Warner, 175 Pa. 302, 34 A. 667,52 Am.St.Rep. 845. The question is largely one of fact.

Although the sale in the present case was not at auction, it was a judicial sale, and the court was trying through competition to obtain the best...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Onanian v. Leggat
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • October 23, 1974
    ...(see Newhall, Settlement of Estates (4th ed.) § 120), or could even have brought them before the probate judge (see Weathers v. Jarvis, 294 Mass. 227, 200 N.E. 886 (1936)). Once the probate decree had been entered the defendant might still have been able to escape liability by seeking its a......
  • Wasserman v. Caledonian-American Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 1, 1950
    ...... with special findings or rulings of law. Manzi v. Carlson, 278 Mass. 267, 273, 180 N.E. 134; Weathers. v. Jarvis, 294 Mass. 227, 229, 230, 200 N.E. 886;. Maher v. Haycock, 301 Mass. 594, 595, 596, 18 N.E.2d. 348. . .        In Scripture ......
  • Maher v. Haycock
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 27, 1938
    ...not inconsistent with express findings, and are necessary to support the conclusion. Nicoli v. Berglund, Mass., 200 N.E. 373;Weathers v. Jarvis, Mass., 200 N.E. 886. The judge must therefore be deemed to have found in accordance with the evidence that all ‘arrangements for the sale of the p......
  • Wasserman v. Caledonian-American Ins. Co., CALEDONIAN-AMERICAN
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 1, 1950
    ...and not inconsistent with special findings or rulings of law. Manzi v. Carlson, 278 Mass. 267, 273, 180 N.E. 134; Weathers v. Jarvis, 294 Mass. 227, 229, 230, 200 N.E. 886; Maher v. Haycock, 301 Mass. 594, 595, 596, 18 N.E.2d In Scripture v. Lowell Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 10 Cush. 356, 359-36......
  • 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