Wood v. Spedoni
| Decision Date | 04 March 1952 |
| Citation | 328 Mass. 483,104 N.E.2d 491 |
| Parties | WOOD v. SPEDONI. SPEDONI v. WOOD. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Paul C. Hanna, Framingham, for defendant.
W. H. Healey, Natick, for Libero Spedoni.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, JJ.
In the first of these two actions of contract Wood, a contractor, seeks to recover a balance alleged to be owed to him by Spedoni, under the terms of a building contract, and in the second Spedoni seeks to recover the amount of an alleged overpayment made by him to Wood on the same contract. The cases were tried together and, after findings for the defendant in the first case and for the plaintiff in the amount of $528.87 in the second case, were reported by a judge of the District Court to the Appellate Division. The cases are before us on appeals by Wood from decisions of the Appellate Division dismissing both reports.
The judge found that Wood contracted with Spedoni to complete, for the price of $4,000, the building of a house which Spedoni had purchased from a bank in an unfinished state, and that it was agreed that extras were to be furnished at a cost of $440.95. There was evidence that, after Spedoni had paid the sum of $3,969.82, Mrs. Spedoni by mistake and contrary to the instructions of her husband delivered to Wood a check for $1,000 which had been received from a certain bank on a mortgage and had been indorsed by Spedoni. At the time of the payment of this check, the amount owed by Spedoni, according to the contract price as found by the judge, was $471.13. The delivery of the check therefore resulted in an overpayment by Spedoni in the amount of $528.87.
In the first case the report raises the question of the correctness of the judge's denial of a ruling requested by Wood that 'There is no evidence of payment for the items sued on in the plaintiff's declaration and the plaintiff is entitled to recover.' The 'items sued on' were for extras and as alleged totaled $231.95. The judge found that the amount of these extras which Wood was entitled to recover was in fact $193.95, which sum was included in the total amount of $4,440.95 which Spedoni had agreed to pay. As there was evidence that, including the final check of $1,000, Wood had received $4,969.82 from Spedoni, it is plain that there was evidence of payment of the items to which reference was made in the request. It its denial and in the finding for the defendant there was no error.
In the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cassiani v. Bellino
...by findings warranted by the evidence. Whittaker v. Eastern States Engr. Corp., 269 Mass. 451, 458, 169 N.E. 419. Wood v. Spedoni, 328 Mass. 483, 485, 104 N.E.2d 491; M. DeMatteo Const. Co. v. Commonwealth, 338 Mass. ----, 156 N.E.2d The sixth request was: 'The provision of the note providi......
- Palmer Russell Co. v. Rothenberg
-
Hennessey v. Bay State Harness Horse Racing & Breeding Ass'n, Inc.
...denial of the defendant's requests to rule that the plaintiff could not recover on the foregoing findings and ruling. Wood v. Spedoni, 328 Mass. 483, 485, 104 N.E.2d 491. Exceptions ...