Legal Opinion
Zuckernik v. Jordan Marsh Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 13, 1935PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLummus, J.
Jacob B. Zuckernik, who will be called the defendant, is an attorney at law who makes a specialty of collecting overdue commercial accounts. Jordan Marsh Company, which will be called the plaintiff, operates a department store. In 1922 an oral agreement was made between the parties, by which the defendant was to be given all the collection cases of the plaintiff, was to advance *153all necessary “court costs” but was ultimately to be repaid them, and was to retain money collected in each case until the entire account should be collected or the balance should appear to be uncollectible, when he…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Pearson v. MulloneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Graustein v. DolanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Carleton & Hovey Co. v. BurnsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Royal Paper Box Co. v. Munro & Church Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Albert Richards Co. v. Mayfair, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Guenard v. BurkeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Morin v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
- Stoneham Five Cents Savings Bank v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Buckley v. JohnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Israel v. SommerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.