Caggiano v. Marchegiano
| Decision Date | 02 July 1951 |
| Citation | 99 N.E.2d 861,327 Mass. 574 |
| Parties | CAGGIANO v. MARCHEGIANO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
E. M. Sullivan, Boston, W. J. Foley, Jr., South Boston, for plaintiff.
E. O. Proctor, R. K. Lamere, Boston, for defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, WILKINS, WILLIAMS and COUNIHAN, JJ.
This is a suit in equity in which the plaintiff seeks specific performance of two alleged contracts, one written and one parol, injunctive relief, and an accounting. The suit is primarily predicated upon the following agreement in writing 'Agreement made this twenty-seventh day of February, 1948, between Rocco Marchegiano, 168 Dover Street, Brockton, Massachusetts, and Generoso Caggiano, also known as Gene Caggiano, 797 Warren Avenue, Brockton, Massachusetts, as follows: In consideration of the time, efforts and teaching of Gene Caggiano to Rocco Marchegiano in the art of Boxing, the said Rocco Marchegiano agrees with Gene Caggiano that in the event the said Rocco Marchegiano should turn Professional and enter the professional filed of Boxing within the next five (5) years, the said Rocco Marchegiano will enter into a contract with Gene Caggiano to retain the said Gene Caggiano as his Manager.' It was signed under seal by both parties.
The allegation in an amendment of the bill of complaint relative to the parol contract is as follows:
The original bill further alleges in substance that for a period of eighteen months prior to July, 1948, the plaintiff continuously instructed, trained, and managed the defendant in all of his amateur boxing matches; that on or about July 12, 1948, the defendant became a professional pugilist and has continued to be such but has refused to enter into a contract to retain the plaintiff as his manager in accordance with the written agreement; that the defendant has engaged others to manage him and under such management has engaged in professional boxing matches, receiving substantial earnings therefrom, for which he has not accounted to the plaintiff; that the defendant is possessed of unique and unusual skill as a professional boxer; and that there was a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant because of said written agreement and the usage and custom referred to in the bill. An allegation as to custom and usage in the bill reads as follows:
In the prayers of the bill the plaintiff asks (1) that the defendant be ordered to comply with the terms of the agreement to retain the plaintiff as his manager on the basis set forth in the bill; (2) that the defendant be restrained from further conducting himself as a professional pugilist or retaining another as his manager contrary to the agreement; (3) and that the defendant be ordered to account to the plaintiff for all damages on account of the defendant's breach of contract.
A demurrer to the bill was overruled and the defendant appealed. Answers were filed to the bill and the amended bill.
After a hearing on the merits the judge made findings of material facts and rulings of law. He then reported the evidence and all questions of law for the consideration of this court. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 214, § 31.
His findings of facts so far as pertinent are as follows: The plaintiff is thirty-seven years old and employed as a mechanic by the Eastern Massachusetts Street Railway Company. He is a former professional pugilist whose career ended in 1936 after he had engaged in about thirty contests. He then began to train amateur fighters and also promoted amateur boxing shows in Brockton and Buzzards Bay. The defendant is about twenty-seven years old. He first met the plaintiff about April, 1946, when, on furlough from the army, he engaged in one of the plaintiff's shows. On his return from the army he again met the plaintiff in January, 1947, and told him he wanted to begin training. This training continued, with but a slight interruption, until February, 1948, during which time the defendant received instructions and supervision from the plaintiff. During this period the defendant engaged in amateur boxing bouts in all of which the plaintiff was in his 'corner'.
Following conversations between them prior to and on February 27, 1948, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the written agreement above referred to. After the execution of this agreement the defend-engaged in other boxing matches in which the plaintiff acted as his trainer and adviser. On two occasions before the signing of the agreement and twice after the signing of the agreement the defendant told the plaintiff in substance that the plaintiff was to be his manager for a five year period and that earnings after expenses would be divided two thirds to the defendant and one third to the plaintiff. About June, 1948, the defendant went to New York where he met one 'Al' Weill, a manager of professional boxers. On July 12, 1948, he entered into an oral fighter-manager contract with Weill which was later reduced to writing on October 8, 1948. Later Weill was superseded by other managers and under all of them the defendant engaged in twenty-three matches, the gross earnings of which were $29,624.04. There was no evidence as to the net profit.
'Forty-eight fighter-manager contracts filed in 1947-1948, from the files of the department of public safety, (being all that were filed during that period) showed the following:
Duration Division of Receipts
-------- --------------------
18 for 10 years 44-Manager 33 1/3% Boxer 66 2/3%
20 for 5 years 2 Manager 25% Boxer 75%
6 for 3 years 1 Manager 30% Boxer 70%
2 for 2 years 1 Manager 40% Boxer 60%
1 for 7 years
1 for 6 years
(emphasis supplied).
The judge further found that the defendant's skill and ability as a pugilist are unique.
The judge made the following rulings: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrington v. Lesley Univ.
...too indefinite to be enforced." Lucey v. Hero Int'l Corp. , 361 Mass. 569, 281 N.E.2d 266, 270 (1972) (quoting Caggiano v. Marchegiano , 327 Mass. 574, 99 N.E.2d 861, 865 (1951) ). In addition, Ms. Harrington's offer of employment21 specifically describes her role as "an employee at-will," ......
-
DiMarzo v. American Mut. Ins. Co.
...showing that the usage had "become notorious by the long and uniform practice of those engaged in the trade." Caggiano v. Marchegiano, 327 Mass. 574, 579-580, 99 N.E.2d 861 (1951), quoting Barrie v. Quinby, supra. The cases on which American Mutual relies are cases in which evidence of cust......
-
Mass Cash Register, Inc. v. Comtrex Systems Corp.
...are ascertainable. Simons v. American Dry Ginger Ale Co., 335 Mass. 521, 523, 140 N.E.2d 649 (1957); see also Caggiano v. Marchegiano, 327 Mass. 574, 580, 99 N.E.2d 861 (1951) ("an agreement to enter into a contract which leaves the terms of that contract for future negotiation is too indef......
-
Schwanbeck v. Federal-Mogul Corp.
...terms of a contract must be certain unless the commercial circumstances enable a court to fill in the blanks. Caggiano v. Marchegiano, 327 Mass. 574, 579, 99 N.E.2d 861 (1951). Simons v. American Dry Ginger Ale Co., 335 Mass. 521, 523, 140 N.E.2d 649 (1957). See Restatement (Second) of Cont......