¶1No error in law appears in the rulings of the Superior Court. By the terms of the order sued on, the liability of the defendant was contingent upon the question whether the house had been finished. That question was one of fact, upon which the terms of the contract under which the house was built were admissible in evidence. Cunningham v. Washburn, 119 Mass. 224. Regan v. Dickinson, 105 Mass. 112. The judge found as matter of fact that the house had not been finished, either according to, or independently of, the building contract. The defendant’s moving into the house was not conclusive proof that the house was finished, and did not estop him to deny that it was. Exceptions overruled.
121 Mass. 584
Robbins v. Blodgett
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 29, 1877
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1877-01-29
Contract, upon the following order: “ Lowell, February 3d, 1875. Mr. Blodgett, please pay to C. H. Robbins, the sum of four hundred and forty-five dollars, and oblige — to be paid when the house is finished — J. T. Willis.” Across the face of the order was written, “ I accept the order. Chas. A. Blodgett.” Writ dated December 21, 1875.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1878
1 state decisions
Relies on Cunningham v. Washburn · Regan v. Dickinson
Cited in Anderson (1889)’s definition of “Fire”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1877-01-29
View the full empirical analysis of this case →