Legal Opinion
Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Rosen
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided May 17, 1927PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCrosby, J.
It is sought in this bill in equity to have the defendants enjoined from preventing the removal of a sprinkler system installed in a building by the plaintiff. At the trial the allegations of the bill were either proved or admitted; the trial judge ruled that the bill could not be *321maintained and ordered that a final decree be entered dismissing it. He reported the case to this court under G. L. c. 214, § 31.
The material facts are that in May, 1925, one Draffone and his wife were record owners of the premises in question; that on May 14, 1925, they entered into a written contract for…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Stone v. LivingstonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Babcock Davis Corp. v. PaineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Hubbell v. East Cambridge Five Cents Savings BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Nickels v. SchollMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Maguire v. ParkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Clayton v. LienhardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- Royal Paper Box Co. v. Munro & Church Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Abeloff v. PeacardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Medford Trust Co. v. Priggen Steel Garage Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Commercial Credit Corp. v. GouldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.