Legal Opinion

Mendelsohn v. Holton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 30, 1925PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSanderson, J.

This is an action of contract in 'which the plaintiff seeks to recover on an account annexed for services performed between January 11,1922, and February 1, 1922, in making a financial report of the Rose Tea Company. The answer is a general denial. The defendant admitted that the services were performed and that if he were liable for them the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the amount set forth in the account annexed to the declaration. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the only question argued is an exception saved in the following language: “I desire an exception to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. White v. . MadisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
  2. Ballou v. TalbotMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
  3. Bartlett v. TuckerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
  4. Boston & Albany Railroad v. RichardsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  5. Seeberger v. McCormickIllinois Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Connelly v. BartlettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  2. National Shawmut Bank v. Fidelity Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
  3. Porshin v. SniderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965
  4. Skowronski v. SachsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
  5. Howard v. G. H. Dunn Insurance Agency, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1976

8 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