TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Sandpaper Co. v. Waltham Factories, Inc.

American Sandpaper Company v. Waltham Factories, Inc.

Am. Sandpaper Co. v. Waltham Factories, Inc., 12 N.E.2d 827 (Mass. 1938)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 2, 1938
Judges
Qua
Citations
12 N.E.2d 827299 Mass. 3691938 Mass. LEXIS 791

Opinion of the Court — Qua

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

Qua, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover in tort for the destruction of its merchandise located in a building the first floor of which is leased from the defendant, caused by water which the defendant allowed to leak from pipes on the floor above.

The lease from the defendant to the plaintiff contained a provision whereby the plaintiff lessee agreed that it would “hold the lessor [defendant] harmless and indemnified against any injury, loss or damage to any person or property on said premises.” Such a covenant as this by a lessee has been construed to place the entire risk of loss upon him and hence constitutes a complete bar to an action by *370 him against his lessor, even when the damage is caused by the lessor’s own negligence. Henry H. Tuttle Co. v. Phipps, 219 Mass. 474 . Clarke v. Ames, 267 Mass. 44 . J. W. Grady Co. v. Herrick, 288 Mass. 304, 308, 309 . We find no solid ground on which the case at bar can be distinguished from these cases. The agreements of indemnity in Boston & Maine Railroad v. T. Stuart & Son Co. 236 Mass. 98, 103 , New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. T. Stuart & Son Co. 260 Mass. 242, 249, 250 , and Gast v. Goldenberg, 281 Mass. 214 , cited by the plaintiff, were included in contracts of an entirely different type. See Ortolano v. U-Dryvit Auto Rental Co. Inc. 296 Mass. 439, 440 .

It is unnecessary to deal with the requests for rulings in detail. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties the finding for the defendant is to stand.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

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

1949: 11950: 119492026peak 1949 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Laskowski v. Manning91 N.E.2d 231 (Mass. 1950)
  2. R. H. Macy & Co. v. City of Fall River83 N.E.2d 880 (Mass. 1949)

Most recent

  1. Laskowski v. Manning91 N.E.2d 231 (Mass. 1950)
  2. R. H. Macy & Co. v. City of Fall River83 N.E.2d 880 (Mass. 1949)

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 7

DepthCaseCited by
Clarke v. Ames, 165 N.E. 696 (Mass. 1929) 43
Boston & Me. R.R. v. T. Stuart & Son Co., 127 N.E. 532 (Mass. 1920) 39
N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. v. T. Stuart & Son Co., 157 N.E. 540 (Mass. 1927) 39
J. W. Grady Co. v. Herrick, 192 N.E. 748 (Mass. 1934) 23
Ortolano v. U-Dryvit Auto Rental Co., 6 N.E.2d 346 (Mass. 1937) 15
Henry H. Tuttle Co v. Phipps, 107 N.E. 354 (Mass. 1914) 11
Gast v. Goldenberg, 183 N.E. 257 (Mass. 1932) 6

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