Legal Opinion

Mills Engineering Co. v. Arthur

Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

Decided January 13, 1993PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Himelfarb v. Novadel Agene Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  2. Carilli v. HerseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  3. City of Boston v. SantosuossoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  4. Sunter v. SunterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  5. Brown v. Massachusetts Port AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Mills Engineering Co. v. ArthurMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API