Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson

11 Citing cases

  1. Wiley & Foss, Inc. v. Saxony Theatres, Inc.

    332 Mass. 172 (Mass. 1955)   Cited 2 times

    Such a writing or record is enough to take the second count to the jury. Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205, 208-209. Sellew v. Tuttle's Millinery Inc. 319 Mass. 368, 371.

  2. Aluminum Smelters Inc. v. Twombly

    330 Mass. 577 (Mass. 1953)   Cited 1 times

    G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 233, ยง 78. Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205, 208-209. Sellew v. Tuttle's Millinery Inc. 319 Mass. 368, 371. "Such records form some evidence that the party charged is the one liable."

  3. W.A. Robinson, Inc. v. Burke

    327 Mass. 670 (Mass. 1951)   Cited 8 times

    Ed.) c. 233, ยง 78, that the entries were made in good faith, in the regular course of business and before the action was begun. We think there was no error. Riley v. Boehm, 167 Mass. 183. Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205. Evidence offered by the defendant, that he never bought any "merchandise, goods or labor or anything else from the plaintiff" and that the agreement "by which . . . [he] was to pay $250 for every trip" was different from the contract declared upon, was properly excluded.

  4. W.W. Britton Inc. v. S.M. Hill Co.

    327 Mass. 335 (Mass. 1951)   Cited 22 times

    Such records form some evidence that the party charged is the one liable. Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205, 209. Taylor v. Harrington, 243 Mass. 210, 213.

  5. Chadwick Carr Co. v. Smith

    293 Mass. 293 (Mass. 1936)   Cited 12 times

    Compare Dittmar v. Norman, 118 Mass. 319, 324. A record of such a consignment, therefore, like a charge on the books of a purported seller ( Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205, 209, Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Malaguti, 269 Mass. 126, 129) is some evidence of a sale to the person named. 2.

  6. Bresky v. Rosenberg

    256 Mass. 66 (Mass. 1926)   Cited 29 times

    Ordinarily the question whether a contract has been made is one of fact. If the evidence consists only of writings, or is uncontradicted, the question is for the court; otherwise it is for the jury. Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205. Waldstein v. Dooskin, 220 Mass. 232. Gould v. Converse, 246 Mass. 185. Hammond Coal Co. Inc. v. Lewis, 248 Mass. 499. There was no single writing signed by both parties and intended by them to embody all the terms of their contract.

  7. Blanchard Lumber Co. v. Maher

    145 N.E. 62 (Mass. 1924)   Cited 7 times

    It also could be found, even on the auditor's report, that, after receiving the orders, and before any shipment, the seller was informed by the correspondence that all stock was to be shipped when dry. The orders, the statements to Amidon, and the correspondence, were all to be considered. Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205, 208. The evidence introduced by the buyer, to which the seller excepted, that Amidon was informed of the purpose for which the boards were bought, and that the lumber must be dry, was therefore admissible.

  8. Zampatella v. Thomson-Crooker Shoe Co.

    249 Mass. 37 (Mass. 1924)   Cited 11 times
    In Zampatella v. Thomson Crooker Shoe Co. (249 Mass. 37; 144 N.E. 82) the agreement was one to pay a fifteen per cent bonus on the yearly earnings; and on a consideration of the evidence it was found as a fact to be a legal contract to pay the bonus and that it was not a mere gratuity.

    The evidence showing the wages he was to receive and the amount of the bonus based on his earnings for the year was admissible. North Packing Provision Co. v. Lynch, 196 Mass. 204. Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205. Glackin v. Bennett, 226 Mass. 316, 319. If the jury believed this evidence, and the question was one of fact, they could find that a legal contract was made to pay this bonus; that it was not a mere gratuity but a part of the contract of service. See Scott v. J. F. Duthie Co. 28 A. L. R. 328.

  9. Taylor v. Harrington

    243 Mass. 210 (Mass. 1922)   Cited 8 times

    We think the books were admissible for the purpose offered under the terms of St. 1913, c. 288 (see now G. L. c. 233, ยง 78), if it be assumed as it must be that the court found that the entries were made in good faith, in the regular course of business, and before the beginning of the civil proceedings in question. American Locomotive Co. v. Hamblen, 217 Mass. 513. Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205. Dickinson v. Boston, 188 Mass. 595. Exceptions overruled.

  10. Glackin v. Bennett

    226 Mass. 316 (Mass. 1917)   Cited 70 times
    In Glackin v. Bennett, 226 Mass. 316, relied on by Builders, where at issue was the admissibility of an oral warranty, the written agreement demonstrated on its face that it included the whole agreement of the parties and all that was necessary to constitute a contract.

    When it is apparent that the writing contains only a part of the agreement and does not purport to set forth all its terms, or when it is a reasonable inference that it was not intended to be a full and final statement of the entire transaction, the existence of a separate agreement, not inconsistent with its terms and relating to some subject on which the written instrument is silent, may be shown by parol. North Packing Provision Co. v. Lynch, 196 Mass. 204, 206. Green v. Danahy, 223 Mass. 1, 4. See also West End Manuf. Co. v. P.R. Warren Co. 198 Mass. 320; Davis v. Cress, 214 Mass. 379; Lyman B. Brooks Co. v. Wilson, 218 Mass. 205. But where a writing shows on its face that it includes the whole agreement of the parties and comprises all that is necessary to constitute a contract, it is presumed that they have placed the terms of their bargain in this form to prevent misunderstanding and dispute, intending it to be a complete and final statement of the whole transaction. And all their stipulations relating to its subject matter are to be found within the written instrument.