Legal Opinion
Cosmopolitan Trust Co. v. Wasserman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided February 28, 1925PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.
The defendant did not specifically require proof of his signature, and, the note having been introduced, he offered evidence in support of his declaration in set-off which if sustained was more than sufficient to cover the plaintiff’s claim. The judge, who heard the case without a jury, disallowed. the set-off and found for the company.
The rights of the defendant as plaintiff in set-off under G. L. c. 232, §§ 1, 2, are to be determined as if the writ had been dated September 25, 1920, when the commissioner of banks took and retained possession of the company for the purpose of liquidating and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cunningham v. Commissioner of BanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
- Spaulding v. BackusMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Perry v. PyeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Bachrach v. Commissioner of BanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Commissioner of Banks v. Cosmopolitan Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Reinsurance Facility v. Commissioner of InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
- Rossi Bros. v. Commissioner of BanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Bryant Brothers v. Wilson, Bank. Com.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
- Commissioner of Insurance v. Munich American Reinsurance Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1999
- Friedman v. Commissioner of BanksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.