Legal Opinion

Elbar Realty, Inc. v. City Bank & Trust Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 15, 1961No. 5. Shapiro was permitted to testify, subject to City Bank’s exception,6 (1) about his conversations with Serano and with. Goldman, (2) about the $1,500 loan which he made to Goldman, and (3) about a $11,000 fee taken for his own work. The judge also admitted, subject to exception, testimony of Goldman (a) about a conversation with the president of Middlesex County National Bank that his bank “was not in a position to handle that kind of bond or, at that time, to do anything with a bond of that size”; and (b) about the $1,500 loan to him. City Bank’s counsel stated that his objection was to admitting this testimony on the issue of bad faith on the part of City Bank, although he did not object to receiving the testimony upon the issue of Shapiro’s lack of title to the certificate. City Bank seasonably excepted to the denial of its request to limit the use of the testimony, made when the testimony was given and also later renewed. Exception was also taken to the testimony that Shapiro was a disbarred lawyer and to Foley’s testimony about Shapiro’s statement that he was a diamond merchant. This statement was not made until after the first $30,000 had been withdrawn from the checking account. It was not shown that City Bank officers knew, prior to any of Shapiro’s withdrawals of cash from the bank account, (1) about the matters discussed by Shapiro and Goldman and by Goldman and his banker, (2) that Shapiro had made the $1,500 loan, or (3) that Shapiro was a disbarred lawyer. City Bank objected to all the testimony described above on the ground that it referred to matters which took place, or became known to City Bank, only after credit had been extended to Shapiro. If this testimony was not admissible on the issue of City Bank’s good faith, the harm was not removed by the charge. Indeed, the judge specifically mentioned Goldman’s effort to obtain a loan from the Middlesex County National Bank and Shapiro’s loan to Goldman as factors at least indirectly bearing upon City Bank’s “innocence and title to that bond.”PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCutter, J.

The plaintiff (Elbar) seeks to recover from the defendant (City Bank) for the alleged conversion of a United States Treasury certificate of indebtedness. The jury found for Elbar in the sum of $101,633.33. City Bank presents its exceptions, among others, to the refusal to direct a verdict for it, to the refusal of a mistrial, and to rulings on evidence. The evidence is stated in its aspect most favorable to Elbar.

On March 20, 1957, Elbar bought a $100,000 United States Treasury bearer certificate of indebtedness due February 14, 1958. On August 17 or 18, 1957, the certificate was stolen from…

2Cases cited39 opinions

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. ParnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
Allen v. Puritan Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
Fillebrown v. HaywardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
National Security Bank v. CushmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877

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

3Cited by9 opinions

Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
Federal Reserve Bank v. PetersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1924
Bowling Green, Inc. v. State Street Bank and Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
George v. Coolidge Bank and Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
Bowling Green, Inc. v. State Street Bank & Trust Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1969

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

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided: March 15, 1961
Docket: No. 5. Shapiro was permitted to testify, subject to City Bank’s exception,6 (1) about his conversations with Serano and with. Goldman, (2) about the $1,500 loan which he made to Goldman, and (3) about a $11,000 fee taken for his own work. The judge also admitted, subject to exception, testimony of Goldman (a) about a conversation with the president of Middlesex County National Bank that his bank “was not in a position to handle that kind of bond or, at that time, to do anything with a bond of that size”; and (b) about the $1,500 loan to him. City Bank’s counsel stated that his objection was to admitting this testimony on the issue of bad faith on the part of City Bank, although he did not object to receiving the testimony upon the issue of Shapiro’s lack of title to the certificate. City Bank seasonably excepted to the denial of its request to limit the use of the testimony, made when the testimony was given and also later renewed. Exception was also taken to the testimony that Shapiro was a disbarred lawyer and to Foley’s testimony about Shapiro’s statement that he was a diamond merchant. This statement was not made until after the first $30,000 had been withdrawn from the checking account. It was not shown that City Bank officers knew, prior to any of Shapiro’s withdrawals of cash from the bank account, (1) about the matters discussed by Shapiro and Goldman and by Goldman and his banker, (2) that Shapiro had made the $1,500 loan, or (3) that Shapiro was a disbarred lawyer. City Bank objected to all the testimony described above on the ground that it referred to matters which took place, or became known to City Bank, only after credit had been extended to Shapiro. If this testimony was not admissible on the issue of City Bank’s good faith, the harm was not removed by the charge. Indeed, the judge specifically mentioned Goldman’s effort to obtain a loan from the Middlesex County National Bank and Shapiro’s loan to Goldman as factors at least indirectly bearing upon City Bank’s “innocence and title to that bond.”
Parties: Elbar Realty, Inc.v.City Bank & Trust Co.
Author: Cutter, J.
Panel: Wilkins, Spalding, Williams, Cutter
Status: Published
Cited by: 9 opinions
Cites: 39 opinions