Legal Opinion
A & H Finance Corp. v. Goldman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 2, 1936PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPierce, J.
This is an action upon a promissory note in the sum of $150, upon which the plaintiff claims there is still due the unpaid balance of $112.50. The plaintiff further claims attorney’s fees in the sum of $16.87, which represents fifteen per cent of the unpaid balance as a reasonable attorney’s fee. The defendant’s answer consists of a general denial; denial of signature and demand for proof; denial that the plaintiff is a holder in due course; and allegations that there was failure of consideration, that the value of the automobile repossessed was greater than the balance due, and that the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Guerin v. StacyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Bailey v. HerveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Frisch v. WellsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Russell v. MartinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Whitney v. AbbottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Denenberg v. JuradMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Morris Gordon & Son, Inc. v. TotoniMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Thomas P. Nichols & Son Co. v. National City BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Welles v. Acree Motor Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940
- Goodyear Service Stores v. GustafsonMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1958
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.