Spevack v. Budish
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for $100, alleged to be due as a commission for procuring an exchange of real estate. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated December 20, 1917. The answer was merely a general denial. The evidence and course of the trial in the Municipal Court is described in the opinion. The judge found for the defendant and at the request of the plaintiffs reported the case to the Appellate Division. The substance of the report is described in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Contract for $100, alleged to be due as a commission for procuring an exchange of real estate. Writ in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston dated December 20, 1917. The answer was merely a general denial. The evidence and course of the trial in the Municipal Court is described in the opinion. The judge found for the defendant and at the request of the plaintiffs reported the case to the Appellate Division. The substance of the report is described in the opinion. The Appellate Division ordered the report dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtJenney, J.
The plaintiffs, who are real estate brokers, were employed by the defendant to procure a sale or an exchange of real estate belonging to him. They brought Abraham Golder to his attention. As a result, on December 11, 1917, a written contract was made by which Golder and the defendant agreed to exchange properties. This contract contained the following paragraph: “It is hereby agreed and understood that the said Louis Budish is to pay to Harry Spevack and Myer Pave the sum of one hundred (100) dollars as commission, and the said Abraham Golder is to pay to the said Harry Spevack and Myer Pave…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Glackin v. BennettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Loanes v. GastMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Butterick Publishing Co. v. FisherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Mears v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Parsons v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Dondis v. LashMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Tripp v. National Shawmut BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Mass. Building Finish Co. v. BrennerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Canton v. ThomasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Beacon Tool & Machinery Co. v. National Products Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.