Cohen v. Silver

• Decision Date: 02 December 1931
• Citation: 277 Mass. 230,178 N.E. 508
• Parties: COHEN v. SILVER et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

277 Mass. 230

178 N.E. 508

COHEN

v.SILVER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Dec. 2, 1931.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hampden County; Greenhalge, Judge.

Action by Henry Cohen against Eliezer Silver and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.J. E. Kerigan, of Springfield (R. W. Hardy, of Brookline, with him), for appellant.

H. M. Ehrlich, J. L. Dowd, and J. I. Robinson, all of Springfield, for appellees.

RUGG, C. J.

The plaintiff seeks by this suit in equity to compel the defendants to desist from interfering with his business and injuring his property rights and to recover compensation for damages already sustained by him through their alleged wrongdoings. The case was heard upon a master's report, the evidence on which its findings rest not being included therein. The plaintiff appealed from a final decree dismissing the bill. Under familiar practice, the facts set forth in the master's report must be accepted as true unless mutually inconsistent or contradictory and plainly wrong and this court decides the case upon the report in accordance with its own judgment and without deference to the action of the trial court.

The controversy relates to the right of the plaintiff to continue in wholesale kosher meat business in Springfield in accordance with Jewish rules and practices. The facts so far as material to the grounds of this decision are these: The plaintiff has been engaged in this business for several years, until 1929 as partner with a brother and since then as an individual. The plaintiff is a member of one of the five orthodox Jewish congregations in Springfield. The defendant Silver represents four of these congregations as rabbi. Four of the defendants are ‘the recognized butchers known as schochtim for these Orthodox congregations.’All the defendants are members of a religiously constituted board known as the Vaad Hakashruth having to do with the regulation of the sale of kosher meat in Springfield. In order that cattle may be slaughtered in such manner that the meat therefrom may be sold as kosher food certain laws, rules and regulations based on the Old Testament, the Talmud and commentaries thereon which have been in existence for centuries must be observed. Among these are rules that a man who violates publicly the law of Sabbath or is suspected of violating that law or ‘does not believe in the Talmud, or has eaten nonkosher food is not a proper man to sell anything as kosher food,’ and that when the ‘Vaad Hakashruth * * * together with the rabbi, passes a rule relative to kosher food, this rule must be kept by the members of the congregation or congregations with the force of a law.’ One of these regulations in effect in Springfield at the times here in question provided in substance amongst other matters that if a wholesaler in kosher meat shall violate the law of the Sabbath publicly or will not listen to the rulings of the rabbi or when called to a Din Torah will not answer, then on first complaint he shall be punished and ‘after that if he does not promise to do right according to Jewish Law he will be disbarred’ from being a wholesale dealer in kosher food. A Din Torah is a religiously constituted court usually composed of at least one rabbi and presided over by one or more persons one of whom must be learned in the aforesaid laws, rules and regulations. The law in regard to kosher food is a very important part of the Jewish faith. The granting and revoking of authority to deal in such food rest with the rabbi and the Vaad Hakashruth. Before a wholesale kosher dealer can do business in kosher meat in Springfield he must according to the Jewish law get a permit from the rabbi and the Vaad Hakashruth together. When the plaintiff was in partnership with his brother the latter alone was recognized as the wholesale dealer and as having a license therefor. After the tormination of that partnership, the ‘schochtim’ or official butchers of kosher meat continued to slaughter cattle for the plaintiff and charge him therefor but the plaintiff never secured from the Vaad Hakashruth or from any rabbi a license or permit to do business as a wholesale dealer in kosher meat. In 1927 a fine imposed on the plaintiff for some violation of a law relative to kosher meat in connection with his business was paid by the brother of the plaintiff. The master found that the plaintiff has at different times and in divers ways violated the Jewish law with respect to the Sabbath and that he has refused to answer a summons to a Din Torah touching a controversy with his brother. The rabbi insisted that the plaintiff allow this controversy to be taken up before the Din Torah but the plaintiff refused on the ground that his brother. ought to bring action against him and permit the affair to be settled in the courts. Notice was given that, if the plaintiff persisted in this course, a special meeting of the Vaad Hakashruth would be called to consider the matter. Such meeting was later called at which all of the defendants were present but which was not attended by the plaintiff or any one representing him. A wholesaler...