Legal Opinion

Albert-Hopkins Corp. v. Caputo

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided April 1, 1970PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Herman v. FineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Marotta v. Iroquois Realty Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Old Colony Bank of Worcester, N. A. v. MillerMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1981
  3. A. F. Reagan Realty Co. v. McMurtrayMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1974
  4. A.B.C. Realty Associates of Braintree, Inc. v. OakhemMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1976
  5. Donahue v. Heritage Property Investment Trust, Inc.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2006

1 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