From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Yanofsky v. Marinucci Bros. Co. Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Jun 15, 1966
218 N.E.2d 405 (Mass. 1966)

Summary

In Yanofsky v. Marinucci Bros. Co., 351 Mass. 698 (1966), a case under the then G.L.c. 149, § 29, the subcontract made particular, stated provision "for payment of interest on each invoice unpaid thirty days after its date."

Summary of this case from John W. Egan Co. v. Maj. Const. Mgt. Corp.

Opinion

June 15, 1966.

James F. Sullivan for Marinucci Bros. Co. Inc.

George M. Herlihy for Maryland Casualty Company.

Joseph M. Corwin ( Sally A. Corwin with him) for the petitioners.


This is a petition under G.L.c. 149, § 29, by a subcontractor against a general contractor as principal and two bonding companies as sureties. The subcontractor and the general contractor stipulated that the unpaid principal balance claimed by the subcontractor and interest thereon from the date of the filing of the sworn statement of claim is due. On the subcontractor's motion for summary judgment under G.L.c. 231, § 59, a final decree was entered awarding the subcontractor the unpaid principal balance, interest from the date of filing of the sworn statement, and also interest on six invoices as provided in the subcontract. The general contractor and one of the sureties appealed, contending that the interest provided for in the subcontract for the six invoices not paid should not have been allowed. There was no error. The subcontract was valid and provided for payment of interest on each invoice unpaid thirty days after its date. The record indicates that the subcontractor substantially performed its obligations under the contract. It is therefore entitled to interest from the dates on which interest began to run under the terms of the subcontract. E. Van Noorden Co. v. Hartford Roofing Sheet Metal Co. Inc. 336 Mass. 676, 678. No demand for interest was necessary. Charles T. Main, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authy. 347 Mass. 154, 168, and cases cited. The surety was not a party to the stipulation. However, the decree against the surety for the principal debt and interest was also correct. "The liability of the surety was to make good any default of the principal in regard to payments, within the amount stated as the penal sum of the bond." George H. Sampson Co. v. Commonwealth, 202 Mass. 326, 339.

Final decree affirmed with costs of appeal.


Summaries of

Yanofsky v. Marinucci Bros. Co. Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Jun 15, 1966
218 N.E.2d 405 (Mass. 1966)

In Yanofsky v. Marinucci Bros. Co., 351 Mass. 698 (1966), a case under the then G.L.c. 149, § 29, the subcontract made particular, stated provision "for payment of interest on each invoice unpaid thirty days after its date."

Summary of this case from John W. Egan Co. v. Maj. Const. Mgt. Corp.
Case details for

Yanofsky v. Marinucci Bros. Co. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH YANOFSKY another vs. MARINUCCI BROS. CO. INC. others

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Jun 15, 1966

Citations

218 N.E.2d 405 (Mass. 1966)
218 N.E.2d 405

Citing Cases

John W. Egan Co. v. Maj. Const. Mgt. Corp.

See, with like result, Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc., 346 Mass. 206, 207 (1963); Powers…