Legal Opinion

Rousell v. Kapsaliarsis

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided July 1, 1966No. 23399 1965PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMurphy, J.

This action in three counts is brought by the plaintiff, assignee of a claim of the law firm of Horvitz and Horvitz for a balance due for professional services ren*141dered to the defendant. The answer is a general denial, payment, the Statute of Frauds, and that another person is responsible for the alleged services.

It is a case where a father made payments on account for services rendered by a law firm to his son. The father now seeks to avoid payment of the balance of the bill on the ground that it is and was owed by the son, who is of legal age.

The defendant filed a motion to extend the time…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Moss v. Old Colony Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  2. Adams v. DickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  3. Kennedy Bros. v. BirdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  4. Duralith Corp. v. LeonardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  5. Noble v. Mead-Morrison Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Arciero v. Eagle Realty Associates, Inc.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1982
  2. Marr Scaffolding Co. v. ZimmermanMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API