Macomber v. King

15 Citing cases

  1. Adams v. Underwood

    470 S.W.2d 180 (Tenn. 1971)   Cited 12 times

    Cases related in effect to this proposition which it may be of benefit to read are Estate of Grossman, 250 Wis. 457, 27 N.W.2d 365, and Wilsey v. Franklin, 57 Hun 382, 10 N.Y.S. 833, and Ronsiek v. Boverschmidts Admr., 63 Mo. App. 421. Also, Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381, 192 N.E. 926. In sum, where, as in this case, an adult or emancipated child, by pre-arrangement with a parent, gives up an established home and moves into the home of the parent, not for the purposes of reestablishing a family relationship, but for the purpose of rendering services of an extraordinary burdensome nature, over a long period of time, the presumption of gratuity need not apply. These facts may constitute "such exceptional facts and circumstances as will establish an intention on the one part to charge and on the other to pay, notwithstanding the relation of kinship."

  2. Mason v. Black

    169 N.E.2d 899 (Mass. 1960)   Cited 3 times

    McKenna v. Twombly, 206 Mass. 62. Butler v. Butler, 225 Mass. 22, 28. French v. Bray, 263 Mass. 121, 123. Tower v. Jenney, 279 Mass. 208. Therrien v. LeBlanc, 282 Mass. 328. Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381. Restatement: Contracts, § 72. In view of the findings there is no room for any presumption that the services were gratuitous. See Tower v. Jenney, supra, p. 211; Sykes v. Smith, 333 Mass. 560, 564-565.

  3. Sykes v. Smith

    333 Mass. 560 (Mass. 1956)   Cited 5 times

    If the one rendering the services to his parent expected to be paid for them and the parent accepting the benefits understood or ought as a reasonable man to have understood that payment was expected, then an implied contract may be found to exist between them. Spencer v. Spencer, 181 Mass. 471. Butler v. Butler, 225 Mass. 22. Sherry v. Littlefield, 232 Mass. 220. French v. Bray, 263 Mass. 121. Tower v. Jenney, 279 Mass. 208. Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381. The findings of the master are not mutually inconsistent, contradictory, or plainly wrong.

  4. LaChance v. Rigoli

    325 Mass. 425 (Mass. 1950)   Cited 39 times
    In LaChance, the Supreme Judicial Court applied this provision, holding that a builder could not recover restitution from the owner of property where the builder's contract was with the owner's tenants.

    No implied contract can be found here between the plaintiffs and the owner. See Spencer v. Spencer, 181 Mass. 471; McKenna v. Twombly, 206 Mass. 62; Butler v. Butler, 225 Mass. 22; French v. Bray, 263 Mass. 121, 123; Tower v. Jenney, 279 Mass. 208; Therrien v. Leblanc, 282 Mass. 328; Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381. The present situation is analogous to one where a landowner has contracted to have a building erected on his land, and his contractor has employed a subcontractor to perform part of the work. On the failure of the contractor to pay the subcontractor, the latter may not recover against the landowner.

  5. Burrell v. Whiting

    324 Mass. 243 (Mass. 1949)   Cited 2 times

    The ultimate findings of the auditor, not being inconsistent with his subsidiary findings, require a decree in favor of the claimant in the sum of $1,208. Butler v. Butler, 225 Mass. 22. Tower v. Jenney, 279 Mass. 208. Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381. Although the point has not been argued, it appears that the judge had no authority to appoint an auditor in this case.

  6. Cameron v. Durkin

    321 Mass. 590 (Mass. 1947)   Cited 5 times

    Norcross v. Haskell, 262 Mass. 568, 570. Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381, 383. Johnson v. Johnson, 300 Mass. 24, 28. Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 601.

  7. Goodfellow v. Newton

    320 Mass. 405 (Mass. 1946)   Cited 1 times

    Smith v. Livermore, 298 Mass. 223, 228. See also Conway v. Shea, 282 Mass. 25, 88 Am. L.R. 551; Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381. A partial change was made in the preexisting law by St. 1909, c. 198, now G.L. (Ter.

  8. Wiley v. Fuller

    310 Mass. 597 (Mass. 1942)   Cited 22 times

    Plumer v. Houghton Dutton Co. 277 Mass. 209, 215. Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381, 383. Atwood v. Atwood, 297 Mass. 229, 231-232.

  9. Adams v. Adams

    33 N.E.2d 314 (Mass. 1941)   Cited 6 times

    In this Commonwealth, the question whether an indebtedness existed between a legatee and the estate has usually arisen where the executor has retained out of the legacy a sum sufficient to pay what he claimed was a debt due to the testator. Rogers v. Daniell, 8 Allen, 343. Taylor v. Taylor, 145 Mass. 239. Bigelow v. Pierce, 179 Mass. 331. Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Underwood, 297 Mass. 320. The will was executed a few months after she had taken over the account, and if she had intended to cancel any loss that might be sustained in carrying the account she could have made such a provision either in her will or in the codicil that she made in the summer of 1937. An examination of the will shows an intent to treat her three children with substantial equality; and while she specifically provided in the third clause for the cancellation of any notes and debts owed to her by her children — a provision which operated to the benefit of her son, who had given his mother three notes totalling $9,000 — yet the cancellation of debts to this amount might not materially interfere with her plan to have the children take substantially equal shares.

  10. Boston v. Santosuosso

    307 Mass. 302 (Mass. 1940)   Cited 81 times

    Norcross v. Haskell, 262 Mass. 568, 570. Macomber v. King, 288 Mass. 381, 383. Johnson v. Johnson, 300 Mass. 24, 28. Though in an equity case the exercise of discretion by a trial judge is reviewable by this court on appeal, there can be no reversal of the action of the trial judge except for error of law or fact shown by the record on appeal, and some weight must be given to the exercise of discretion by the trial judge.