Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1976

T. L. Edwards, Inc. v. Fields

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided December 22, 1976

371 Mass. 895; 358 N.E.2d 768; 1976 Mass. LEXIS 1257

Cases that cite this one

42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Dambrov v. Oster (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1984)
Silva v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Mass. App. Ct. 2017)
Ward v. Gaffny (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2012)
Kendall v. Cudd (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2011)
Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz (Mass. 2010)
Summer Hill Ltd. Partnership v. Double Dixon, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2010)
31-35, LLC v. Zucco (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2008)
Brooks v. Connor (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2006)
15-17 University, LLC v. Lucas (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2006)
Celebrity Builders, Inc. v. Fernandes (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2005)
JML Care Center, Inc. v. Bishop (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2004)
Panagiotes v. Demoulas Market Basket, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2004)
Kitner v. CTW Transport, Inc. (Mass. App. Ct. 2002)
NationsBanc Mortgage Corp. v. Eisenhauer (Mass. App. Ct. 2000)
Rood v. Newberg (Mass. App. Ct. 1999)
Varney Bros. Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Champagne (Mass. App. Ct. 1998)
Mark Moore Homes, Inc. v. Tarvezian (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1998)
Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Department of Mental Retardation (Mass. 1997)
Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc. (Mass. 1997)
Hirshom v. Zenith Products Corp. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1997)
Lundgren v. Gray (Mass. App. Ct. 1996)
Hurwitz v. Helen's Bakery, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1992)
Anderson v. Astro Plating Works (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1991)
Liberty Bank & Trust Co. v. Pergantis (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1990)
Pinkerton's, Inc. v. Busconi (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1990)

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 Appellate Division of the District Courts, Southern District, dismissed a report as to the defendant Fields. The plaintiff corporation had brought an action against Fields, one John Trainor, and Campello Car Wash, Inc., to recover $910.69 plus interest, for labor and materials supplied. Trainor defaulted. Fields requested rulings (1) that on all the evidence the plaintiff has not supported his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, and (2) that on all the evidence the acts of the plaintiff are ultra vires. The trial judge denied the request for these rulings and made findings that Fields had ordered the plaintiff at an *896agreed price to fill in and grade the back and side area of a car wash facility to prepare the area for blacktopping. He found that the plaintiff delivered the fill and gravel as requested and completed the grading of the area and had not been paid. The Appellate Division correctly held that it could not review questions of fact found by the trial judge, where such findings are supported “on any reasonable view of the evidence, including all rational inferences of which it was susceptible.” Bowers v. Hathaway, 337 Mass. 88, 89 (1958). Drain v. Brookline Sav. Bank, 327 Mass. 435, 439 (1951). Barttro v. Watertown Square Theatre, Inc., 309 Mass. 223, 224 (1941). Weiner v. Egleston Amusement Co., 293 Mass. 83, 86 (1935). Furthermore, the opinion of the Appellate Division sets out the corporate purposes of the plaintiff corporation which, without detailing them, can be said to be sufficiently broad to justify the claim of the plaintiff corporation for the work done. There was no error. The order of the Appellate Division dismissing the report is affirmed.

The case was submitted on a brief. Victor G. Fields for the defendant.

So ordered.

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