Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880

Dwight v. Ludlow Manufacturing Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided February 27, 1880 · Ames

128 Mass. 280; 1880 Mass. LEXIS 62

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Boston & Albany Railroad v. Department of Public Utilities (Mass. 1943)
O'Donnell v. Mathews (Mo. Ct. App. 1926)
Garland v. Samson (8th Cir. 1916)
Abell v. Abell (Baltimore City Circuit Court 1901)
Vass v. Wales (Mass. 1880)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Ames, J.

The interpretation of the contract adopted by the arbitrator was, in our judgment, the only one which it would bear. The plaintiff’s letter contains a proposition “ to put the gutter of mill No 2 in proper shape without charge.” This was very far from a proposition to furnish a new gutter of a different construction. The defendant’s letter accepting the proposition requires the plaintiff to “ repair and renew, so far as necessary, the *282gutter of Mill No. 2.” This form of expression can only mean that the plaintiff was to make such repairs and renewals that the existing gutter should do all that it was capable of doing, when in good condition, according to its original construction. The result is that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the larger of the two sums reported by the arbitrator.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.