From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oman v. Vickery

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
May 28, 1945
62 N.E.2d 112 (Mass. 1945)

Opinion

May 28, 1945.

F.H. Pardee, for the defendant.

J.W. Keith, for the plaintiff.


Order dismissing report affirmed. The trial judge found for the plaintiff for $712.45 (with interest from the date of demand), the full amount claimed in a count upon an account annexed for labor and materials in building a house for the defendant. A written contract to build the house for a fixed price had been prepared, but it never was executed. The defendant contended that its terms were orally adopted by the parties. The judge found to the contrary. It is true that upon request he made a ruling — immaterial and improper upon his finding — that "the plaintiff cannot recover in quantum meruit unless he acted in good faith or substantially performed the contract." But the making of that ruling did not alter his definite and conclusive finding that "the unsigned agreement was not adopted as the oral contract between the parties." There was no prejudicial error. No error of law appears in denying the defendant's motion for "correction of the findings and rulings" or his motion for a new trial.


Summaries of

Oman v. Vickery

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
May 28, 1945
62 N.E.2d 112 (Mass. 1945)
Case details for

Oman v. Vickery

Case Details

Full title:JOHN W. OMAN vs. RALPH W. VICKERY

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: May 28, 1945

Citations

62 N.E.2d 112 (Mass. 1945)
318 Mass. 780

Citing Cases

Conway v. Conners

As this court has already ruled, we believe the complaint is sufficient both to state a cause of action for a…