Legal Opinion

Rosenberg v. Garfinkel

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided April 1, 1936PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtField, J.

This suit in equity was brought by the plaintiff to enforce an alleged obligation of the defendant Garfinkel to the plaintiff and to reach and apply to the payment thereof stock in the defendant Barr & Bloomfield Shoe Mfg. Co. and money on deposit with the defendant Essex Trust Company. The bill alleges that the defendant Garfinkel (herein referred to as the defendant), in June, 1930, induced the plaintiff and other stockholders in the Harold Shoe Mfg. Company, for the purpose of reorganizing the corporation with additional capital, to transfer their stock therein to the defendant, that the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Coe v. WareMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
  2. Israel v. SommerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  3. Mershon v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
  4. New Method Die & Cut-Out Co. v. Milton Bradley Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  5. Evans, Coleman & Evans, Ltd. v. PistorinoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Shulkin v. ShulkinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  2. Carroll v. HinchleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
  3. Markey v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API