Legal Opinion

Arlington Trust Co. v. Le Vine

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 26, 1935PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.

The plaintiff seeks in this action of contract to recover on two promissory notes and under a written agreement supplemental thereto, all of which were in evidence. The genuineness of the signature of the defendant to each was admitted. The notes were overdue. The defendant failed to make payments as stipulated in the *586supplemental agreement. At the close of the evidence each party moved for a directed verdict. The parties having agreed upon the amount due the plaintiff, if it was entitled to recover, a verdict was directed in its favor on June 1,1934. The defendant filed a bill of exceptions…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stevenson v. DonnellyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  2. Chertok v. DixMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  3. Walsh v. FeinsteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  4. Broomfield v. SheehanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Gallagher v. AtkinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  2. Carey v. Planning Board of RevereMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
  3. Checkoway v. Cashman Bros.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  4. Saunders v. Shoe Lace Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
  5. Curran v. BurkhardtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941

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

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

Powered by the Exa API