Albert-Hopkins Corp. v. Caputo
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the Court
In this action of contract to recover a broker’s commission, the plaintiff’s sole exception is to the allowance of the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence. It was prerequisite to the plaintiff’s recovery “in any suit or action” that it have been “a duly licensed *766broker at the time such services were performed.” G. L. c. 112, § 87RR (inserted by St. 1957, c. 726, § 2). The plaintiff’s declaration alleged that “it was a real estate broker duly licensed by the Commonwealth of Massac chusetts.” By their general denial the defendants “made it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Herman v. FineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
3Cited by6 opinions
- Marotta v. Iroquois Realty Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1980
- Old Colony Bank of Worcester, N. A. v. MillerMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1981
- A. F. Reagan Realty Co. v. McMurtrayMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1974
- A.B.C. Realty Associates of Braintree, Inc. v. OakhemMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1976
- Donahue v. Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.