Mills Engineering Co. v. Arthur
Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
This situation arises out of a breach of contract action. A summation of the facts is as follows. The plaintiff, Mills Engineering Company, Inc., sought to recover damages against the defendants, Kenneth Arthur and Milton Florest, Jr., for allegedly *4breaching their obligations under a contract for the purchase and sale of the assets - i.e., the name, goodwill, inventory and equipment, of the plaintiff s business, Mills Engineering Company, Inc. The defendants had executed a note for the purchase price of the business, less the amount of a down payment which had been made. The defendants had…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Himelfarb v. Novadel Agene Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Carilli v. HerseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- City of Boston v. SantosuossoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Sunter v. SunterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Brown v. Massachusetts Port AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mills Engineering Co. v. ArthurMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1993