Costa v. Goldenberg
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.
A verdict for the defendants Goldenberg and Hershman having been directed, the case is here on the exceptions of the defendant Gast. We are of opinion that the defendant has failed to show error in the rulings.
The jury could find that in August, 1918, the plaintiff was engaged in business “as grocer and provision, dealer”.and, having bought goods on credit for which she had not paid, two of her creditors brought suit, and the writs were given to the defendant, a duly qualified constable, for service. He attached all the personal property in the store, some of which consisted of perishable…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wood v. GravesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Shea v. HudsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Scollard v. BrooksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1898
- Porter v. WarrenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Copp v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Menici v. Orton Crane & Shovel Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Manhattan Clothing Co. v. GoldbergMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Gast v. GoldenbergMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Hennessey v. AloisiMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1945
- MacLeod v. Cities Service Oil Co.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1950