Taylor v. Dexter Engine Co.

146 Mass. 613 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888

Facts

The defendant's engine was initially placed lawfully in the basement of the plaintiff's building. Subsequently, the tenant of the premises failed to pay rent, leading the plaintiff to take possession of the building. The plaintiff then notified the defendant corporation that a daily charge would be imposed if the engine was not removed. Despite this notification, the engine remained in the basement for an additional period. It is inferred that the defendant eventually removed the engine from the premises.

Procedural history

The case was initially tried without a jury, which resulted in a finding for the plaintiff. The defendant then appealed to "this court," contending that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the pleadings and that the facts were insufficient. This court reviewed the arguments and affirmed the lower court's finding.

Issue

Did the facts presented sufficiently support an implied promise by the defendant to pay for storage, thereby entitling the plaintiff to recover under the pleadings?

Holding

Yes, the court affirmed the finding for the plaintiff, concluding that a promise to pay for storage could be fairly implied from the facts presented.

Rule

A promise to pay for storage may be fairly implied from circumstances where a property owner notifies the owner of goods that a charge will be made for continued storage after the goods were initially placed lawfully. The court reasoned that a judge could properly infer an intent to pay for storage rather than an intent to abandon the property, especially when the property is ultimately removed.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-06-19. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.