Legal Opinion

Rosenblatt v. Holstein Rubber Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 3, 1933PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtField, J.

This is an action of contract. The first count of the declaration alleges an indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiff for services, the second an indebtedness for *299commissions on sales. The answer is a general denial, payment, and accord and satisfaction. There was a verdict on the first count for the plaintiff and on the second for the defendant. The case comes before us on the defendant’s exception to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict on the first count. The defendant’s only contention in support of its motion is that as matter of law recovery was barred by accord and…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Landrum v. Trowbridge, Dwight & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
  2. Worcester Color Co. v. Henry Wood's Sons Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
  3. Komp v. . RaymondNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  4. Whittaker Chain Tread Co. v. Standard Auto Supply Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  5. Seemann v. EneixMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Quality Finance Co. v. HurleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
  2. McFaden v. NordblomMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  3. Sherman v. SidmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  4. Champlin v. JacksonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  5. Dubois v. Atlantic Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948

20 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