Legal Opinion

Calvin Hosmer, Stolte Co. v. Paramount Cone Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 14, 1934PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.

These are actions for breach of contract to take and pay for flour. They are before us, after verdicts for the plaintiffs, on exceptions claimed by the defendants to rulings in admission and rejection of evidence; to denials of motions for directed verdicts; to refusal of requests for instructions to the jury; and to portions of the charge.

There is nothing in the exception to denial of motions for *280directed verdicts. The evidence was ■ conflicting. We find no indisputable evidence binding upon the plaintiff which precluded recovery. In such a state of affairs the issues of fact were for the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Porter v. HarringtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  2. Draper v. Inhabitants of HatfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
  3. Durgin v. SomersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Rice v. SchmidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Bedford v. Trustees of Boston UniversityMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1988
  3. Jones v. Le May-Lieb Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  4. Brancaleone v. ParisiMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1975
  5. Zucco v. KaneMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2002

3 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