Adamson v. Guild
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contbact, to recover $200 and interest for services alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff for the defendant in the defendant’s store in Somerville.
Read the full summary
Contbact, to recover $200 and interest for services alleged to have been performed by the plaintiff for the defendant in the defendant’s store in Somerville. Writ dated March 8, 1899. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aiken, J., the defendant contended that he never employed the plaintiff, but that the plaintiff was a partner with the defendant and one Miss York in the business in which the services were rendered, or that the services were rendered in contemplation of and for the benefit of such partnership. The evidence was conflicting. The business was that of a grocer and…
1Opinion of the CourtLoring, J.
In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover for her services as an employee in a certain store from May 7 to September 7,1894, at the rate of $50 a month. The defendant admitted that the services were rendered, but set up as a defence that the plaintiff rendered them as a partner, or in contemplation that she was to become a partner, and he asked the court to rule that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff and that upon the whole evidence there was, as matter of law, a partnership between them. These rulings were refused, and the jury found a verdict for…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Shapira v. BudishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Wheelock v. ZevitasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Superior Plumbing & Heating Co. v. St. LaurentMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1974