Legal Opinion

Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided June 23, 1976PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.

By the first two counts of the plaintiff’s amended declaration, he seeks recovery of certain bonuses claimed to be due him under a written contract with the defendant, his former employer. By count three he seeks recovery in the same amount on a quantum meruit for the fair value of services which allegedly gave rise to the bonuses. The defendant appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $45,649.62.

The only question we find it necessary to reach is whether the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was properly denied.1 We summarize the evidence most favor*387able to the…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Sibbald v. . the Bethlehem Iron CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  2. Elliott v. KazajianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  3. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  4. Soares v. Lakeville Baseball Camp, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  5. Des Rivieres v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Bump v. RobbinsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
  3. Parslow v. Pilgrim Parking, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
  4. Russo v. Star Market Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
  5. Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API