Legal Opinion
Lunn & Sweet Co. v. Wolfman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 10, 1929PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.
These two actions of contract are between the same parties, were tried together, and come before us on a single bill of exceptions. The plaintiff seeks recovery, in one action, for the purchase price of shoes under a written contract, and, in the other action, damages for failure by the defendants to take shoes under the same contract. The controversy arises out of the circumstance that a contract in writing in the name of the Lunn and Sweet Shoe Company, a Maine corporation, was executed with the defendants on November 20, 1919, whereby the latter agreed to purchase shoes made by the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Moss v. Old Colony Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Simmons v. FishMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Mabardy v. McHughMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Fisher v. DoeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Greene v. CoreyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Peterson v. HopsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Godbout v. CousensMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1985
- Merrimac Chemical Co. v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Howland v. StoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Stern v. LiebermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.