Legal Opinion
Waters v. Pacific Wool Products Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided June 26, 1929PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCrosby, J.
This is an action to recover a broker’s commission. The declaration is in two counts, the first upon a special contract by the terms of which, it is alleged, the defendant agreed that if the plaintiff would procure a customer for certain wool, the defendant would pay him a reasonable sum for his services; that the plaintiff procured such a customer, but the defendant has refused to pay him for his services. The second count is upon an account annexed.
The plaintiff was a wool broker, in Boston, in 1923 and 1924. The defendant was during those years a dealer in wool whose principal place of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Elliott v. KazajianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Cadigan v. CrabtreeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
- French v. McKayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- O'Connell v. CaseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Willard v. WrightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Pacheco v. MedeirosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Corleto v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Siegel v. LoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
- Malloy v. Coldwater Seafood Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
- Provost v. BurginMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.