Legal Opinion

Gramatan National Bank & Trust Co. v. Montgomery

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 3, 1961PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilkins, C.J.

The defendants in this action of contract to recover upon a promissory note were defaulted when the case was called for trial. Later at a hearing for the assessment of damages the defendants’ counsel made the limited contention that the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees. The judge denied the defendants’ requests for rulings, and found for the plaintiff for the amount due on the note with interest and attorney’s fees. The defendants excepted.

Reasonable attorney’s fees may be recovered on an overdue note which so provides. Leventhal v. Krinsky, 325 Mass. 336, 341. See G. L. (Ter.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Leventhal v. KrinskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
  2. McDade v. MoynihanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Robbins v. KrockMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2008
  2. AMERICAN SERVICE & SUPPLY CO. INC. v. RabyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API