McCormick v. Cheevers

Decided March 25, 1878

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1878-03-25

<p>Tho defendant conveyed a parcel of land to the plaintiff after the mayor and alder men of a city had made an order, under the St. of 1872, c. 299, requiring the owners of certain lands, including the parcel of the defendant, to fill them up to a specified grade. The plaintiff, before accepting the deed, said to the defendant “ You have to pay for the filling in; ” to which the defendant replied, “All right, I will pay it.” The plaintiff then accepted the deed and paid the purchase money. An assessment was subsequently laid by the mayor and aldermen upon the land, and the plaintiff paid it. Held, in 'an action for the amount of the assessment, that the evidence disclosed a valid independent agreement by the defendant to pay any assessment for filling which the mayor and aldermen might lay upon the land, conveyed, whether the proceedings, under which the assessment was laid, were regular or not.</p>

Relies on Carr v. Dooley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-03-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 1971

18 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mortoít, J.

¶1The presiding justice of the Superior Court who tried this case without a jury, found for the plaintiff upon his second count, upon the ground that the defendant at the time the deed was given made an independent agreement to pay any assessments which the mayor and aldermen of Cambridge might lay for the filling of the land conveyed. There was sufficient evidence to justify this finding, and the case cannot be distinguished from Carr v. Dooley, 119 Mass. 294. The several questions raised by the defendant as to the validity and regularity of the proceedings of the city authorities in laying the assessment are immaterial. The whole object of the separate agreement would be defeated if the plaintiff was obliged to contest the regularity of these proceedings, at an expense probably greater than the whole amount of the assessment.

¶2 Exceptions overruled.