Baseball Publishing Co. v.
Bruton case brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
18 N.E.2d 362
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant
appealed from a judgment of the Suffolk Superior Court
(Massachusetts) entering a decree of specific performance for
plaintiff in an action for enforcement of an agreement for placement
of an advertisement sign on defendant's building.
FACTS: Plaintiff was engaged in the business of controlling locations for billboards and signs and contracting with advertisers for the exhibition of their placards and posters. Defendant gave plaintiff a writing signed but not sealed by defendant whereby for consideration defendant agreed to give plaintiff the exclusive right to maintain a sign on a building owned by defendant. It was provided that all signs placed on the premises remained the personal property of plaintiff. The writing was headed as a lease. Plaintiff accepted by sending defendant a check in the amount of the agreed consideration. Defendant returned the check. Plaintiff erected the contemplated sign. Defendant caused the sign to be removed. Plaintiff brought a bill for specific performance, contending the writing was a lease. The trial judge entered a final decree for specific performance for plaintiff.
HOLDING:
The supreme judicial court affirmed holding an easement in equity was created.
CONCLUSION: Judgment affirmed; trial court did not err in awarding specific performance even though the agreement was not under seal because equity created an easement on the part of plaintiff.
FACTS: Plaintiff was engaged in the business of controlling locations for billboards and signs and contracting with advertisers for the exhibition of their placards and posters. Defendant gave plaintiff a writing signed but not sealed by defendant whereby for consideration defendant agreed to give plaintiff the exclusive right to maintain a sign on a building owned by defendant. It was provided that all signs placed on the premises remained the personal property of plaintiff. The writing was headed as a lease. Plaintiff accepted by sending defendant a check in the amount of the agreed consideration. Defendant returned the check. Plaintiff erected the contemplated sign. Defendant caused the sign to be removed. Plaintiff brought a bill for specific performance, contending the writing was a lease. The trial judge entered a final decree for specific performance for plaintiff.
HOLDING:
The supreme judicial court affirmed holding an easement in equity was created.
CONCLUSION: Judgment affirmed; trial court did not err in awarding specific performance even though the agreement was not under seal because equity created an easement on the part of plaintiff.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment