Martin v. Drinan
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kennedy v. Owen (Mass. 1884)
- Akasu v. Power (Mass. 1950)
- Putnam Furniture Building, Inc. v. Commonwealth (Mass. 1948)
- Utilities Production Corp. v. Southwestern Natural Gas Co. (Superior Court of Delaware 1940)
- Everett Factories & Terminal Corp. v. Oldetyme Distillers Corp. (Mass. 1938)
- Mayo v. Dearborn (Me. 1933)
- Shade v. M. O'Keefe, Inc. (Mass. 1927)
- Millikan v. Hunter (Ind. 1913)
- Childs v. Boston & Maine Railroad (Mass. 1912)
- Sjoblom v. Mark (Minn. 1908)
- Pearson v. Bailey (Mass. 1901)
- Whittenton Manufacturing Co. v. Staples (Mass. 1895)
- King v. Wight (Mass. 1892)
- Midland Railway Co. v. Fisher (Ind. 1890)
- Willard v. Wood (D.C. 1886)
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
The agreement to repair buildings upon land adjoining the defendant’s, being contained in a deed poll to her, and not being under her seal, is not a covenant, and this action is in the nature of assumpsit on the promise implied from the acceptance of the deed." Maine v. Cumston, 98 Mass. 317, 320, and cases cited. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the action against an assign of the promisor. Parish v. Whitney, 3 Gray, 516. Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175, 186. And it is quite clear that it cannot be maintained in the name of an assign of the promisee. Standen v. Chrismas, 10 Q. B. 135. Bickford v. Parson, 5 C. B. 920.
Exceptions overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.