TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bottini v. Addonizio

Elena Bottini & another v. Josephine Addonizio

Bottini v. Addonizio, 158 N.E. 846 (Mass. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 30, 1927
Citations
158 N.E. 846261 Mass. 4561927 Mass. LEXIS 1371

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court.

This is an action to recover the balance due on a written contract for the building of a garage. The answer was a general denial, payment and recoupment. One clause of the contract was: “All work and material to be satisfactory to the inspectors and to the buyer.” The trial judge found that the plaintiff performed all the work required by the terms of the contract in a workmanlike manner, and found generally for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant requested a ruling that “the measure of damages would be the contract price, minus the amount by which the value of the house as left by the plaintiff falls short of what the value would have been if he had constructed the property, including the garage, in a manner which would have been reasonably satisfactory.” This ruling was refused as not applicable in view of the findings of fact made.

The general finding in favor of the plaintiff imported a finding of every subsidiary fact necessary to that result. The evidence was ample to warrant the conclusion that the work was performed in such a way as reasonably ought to have been satisfactory to the defendant. This is all that the contract required. Handy v. Bliss, 204 Mass. 513, 520 . The general finding for the plaintiff means that the judge found this fact in the plaintiff’s favor. Therefore he never reached, nor properly could reach, consideration of the question of damages, and the requested ruling was denied rightly.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1929: 21930: 21944: 11949: 11955: 11961: 119292026peak 1929 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Atma v. Munoz146 P.2d 631 (N.M. 1944)
  2. American Institute for Economic Research v. Assessors of Great Barrington87 N.E.2d 186 (Mass. 1949)
  3. Sargeant v. Traverse Building Trust167 N.E. 233 (Mass. 1929)
  4. Salem Glass Co. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc.176 N.E.2d 30 (Mass. 1961)
  5. Melville Shoe Corp. v. Kozminsky167 N.E. 305 (Mass. 1929)
  6. Reynolds v. Cole172 N.E. 91 (Mass. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Salem Glass Co. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc.176 N.E.2d 30 (Mass. 1961)
  2. Hunt v. Keohane12 Mass. App. Dec. 77 (1955)
  3. American Institute for Economic Research v. Assessors of Great Barrington87 N.E.2d 186 (Mass. 1949)
  4. Atma v. Munoz146 P.2d 631 (N.M. 1944)
  5. Peerless Petticoat Co. v. Colpak-Van Costume Co.173 N.E. 429 (Mass. 1930)
  6. Reynolds v. Cole172 N.E. 91 (Mass. 1930)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Handy v. Bliss, 90 N.E. 864 (Mass. 1910) 56

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list