Legal Opinion

Berenson v. H. G. Vogel Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided June 29, 1925PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.

The plaintiff, owner of a building in the city of Boston, having been required by law to equip it with an automatic fire sprinkler system, entered, on or about October 16, 1919, into a contract with the company to install the necessary apparatus. The work was completed to the plaintiff’s satisfaction May 4, 1920, and partial payments were made, leaving a balance of $4,447.13, which the plaintiff stipulated the company was entitled to recover under its cross bill if the contract was enforceable. We shall refer to Berenson as the plaintiff, and to the H. G. Vogel Company, Inc. as the defendant.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  2. Board of Trade of Chicago v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  3. United States v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  4. United States v. United States Steel CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  5. Commonwealth v. DyerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. McHughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
  2. Foster v. Shubert Holding Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
  3. A. T. Stearns Lumber Co. v. HowlettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
  4. Hill v. Trustees of Glenwood CemeteryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
  5. American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. RobertsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930

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

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

Powered by the Exa API