Lord v. Town of Winchester
Herbert Lord v. Town of Winchester
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
This is an action of contract in which the plaintiff seeks to recover for services and expenses he incurred in his efforts to prevent the defendant from selling certain land. The plaintiff appeals from the order of the Appellate Division dis- ■ missing a report from the District Court judge who found for the defendant. *789 The Appellate Division was correct in stating that “Ed or a municipality to be bound . . . there must be a contract and not only must there be an underlying authority in the municipality to make the contract, but . . . must be made on its behalf by a duly authorized agent. If any of these elements is missing, there is no liability on the municipality to perform even in quantum meruit.” Lowell v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. 313 Mass. 257, 272 . The plaintiff admits he was a volunteer. There was no error.
Herbert Lord, pro se. No argument or brief for the defendant Order dismissing report affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(municipality not liable even in quantum meruit, where contract not properly authorized)
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.