Legal Opinion
Benrus Watch Co. v. Rosengarten
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 11, 1951PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
The Charles Rosengarten Company, Henry Butler and Ralph K. Winter claimed the commission for the sale of two industrial buildings by the plaintiff. All agreed that one commission of $3400 was *394due. The plaintiff paid this sum into court. Following an interlocutory judgment that the defendants named above interplead, the court concluded on a trial on the merits that Winter was the procuring cause of the sale. The judgment ordered the payment to him of the commission less expenses incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the interpleader action. Only the Rosengarten Company has appealed. It…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Housatonic Valley Insurance Agency, Inc. v. KlipsteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Murphy v. LinskeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Fisher v. HansonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
- Seward v. M. Seward & Son Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
- Provost v. BurginMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Busker v. United Illuminating Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Richter v. DrenckhahnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- Rzucidlo v. Newtown Realty, Inc.Connecticut Superior Court · 1974
- Rzucidlo v. Newtown Realty, Inc.Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1974