History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tracey v. Grant
137 Mass. 181
Mass.
1884
Check Treatment
C. Allen, J.

1. The plaintiff’s demand was for an unliquidated sum. He sought to recover damages for the defendant’s refusal to perform his promise. That promise, as alleged, was to pay a certain sum of money and to transfer a certain number of shares. This promise was alleged to have been broken; and, for the breach, the plaintiff claimed damages. These damages were unliquidated, and could not be ascertained by calculation, but would depend upon a consideration of how much the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the breach of the whole agreement of the defendant. No set-off, therefore, could be allowed. Pub. Sts. c. 168, §§ 3, 7.

2. The plaintiff might properly take the objection at the trial, though no demurrer had been filed. Montague v. Boston § Fairhaven Iron Works, 97 Mass. 502. Hubbard v. Mosely, 11 Gray, 170. Exceptions overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: Tracey v. Grant
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: May 9, 1884
Citation: 137 Mass. 181
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.