Connelly v. S. Slater & Sons, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1928 |
| Citation | 265 Mass. 155,164 N.E. 77 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | John J. CONNELLY v. S. SLATER & SONS, Inc., and Tr. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Robert F. Raymond, Judge.
William Flaherty, of Boston, and Frank P. Ryan and Samuel Perman, both of Worcester, for plaintiff.
F. W. Knowlton, C. F. Choate, and R. Wait, all of Boston, for defendants.
In this case the plaintiff is seeking to recover a commission as broker for the sale made by the defendant to the American Woolen Company referred to in Horowitz v. S. Slater & Sons, Inc., 261 Mass. --, 164 N. E. 72.
For reasons already appearing in that case, the rulings excluding the conversations between the plaintiff and Brown and between the plaintiff and Bartlett upon which proof of any contract of employment depended were right. It appeared that at the time of the conversations Brown was president and director and Bartlett treasurer and director of the defendant corporation.
No vote of the stockholders was introduced in evidence in this case, and the fact that the mills were sold to the American Woolen Company when considered with all the other testimony would not justify a finding of ratification of the plaintiff's employment.
It did not appear that any information concerning such employment was brought to the attention of the stockholders or other directors up to the time the sale was consummated. Beacon Trust Co. v. Souther, 183 Mass. 413, 67 N. E. 345;Banca Italiana di Sconto v. Columbia Counter Co., 252 Mass. 559, 148 N. E. 105. No error appears in the rulings during the trial nor in the order directing a verdict for the defendant.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bloomberg v. Greylock Broadcasting Co.
...directors or a majority of them had knowledge of Podolsky's actions and approved of them or ratified them. See Connelly v. S. Slater & Sons, Inc., 265 Mass. 155, 157, 164 N.E. 77; Kelly v. Citizens Finance Co. of Lowell, Inc., 306 Mass. 531, 532-534, 28 N.E.2d 1005, 130 A.L.R. 890. See also......
-
James F. Monaghan, Inc. v. M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.
... ... 634; ... Treasurer and Receiver General v. Macdale Warehouse ... Co., 262 Mass. 588, 593, 160 N.E. 434; Horowitz v ... S. Slater & Sons, Inc., 265 Mass. 143, 164 N.E. 72; ... Judkins v. Tuller, 277 Mass. 247, 178 N.E. 540; ... De Blois v. Boylston & Tremont Corp., 281 Mass ... Leland, 153 Mass. 510, 513, 27 ... N.E. 519; Eastern Advertising Co. v. Standard Nut Co., ... Inc., 264 Mass. 238, 242, 162 N.E. 339; Connelly v ... S. Slater & Sons, Inc., 265 Mass. 155, 164 N.E. 77; ... Kidder v. Greenman, 283 Mass. 601, 615, 616, 187 ... N.E. 42, 88 A.L.R. 1370. The ... ...
-
Stoneman v. Fox Film Corp.
... ... Fox Northeastern Playhouses, Inc., and the Fox Metropolitan ... Playhouses, [4 N.E.2d 64] Inc., two ... v. Nesson, 286 ... Mass. 216, 222, 190 N.E. 31; Horowitz v. S. Slater & Sons ... Inc., 265 Mass. 143, 147, 148, 164 N.E. 72; Connelly ... v ... ...
-
Perkins v. Rich
...1936). Further, as found by the master, the Committee was not totally ignorant of Rich's actions. Contrast Connelly v. S. Slater & Sons, 265 Mass. 155, 157, 164 N.E. 77 (1928). From the many indicia of the radical physical and structural changes to the church and its surroundings, it should......