Cummings v. Nat'l Shawmut Bank of Boston
| Decision Date | 03 January 1934 |
| Citation | 188 N.E. 489,284 Mass. 563 |
| Parties | CUMMINGS v. NATIONAL SHAWMUT BANK OF BOSTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; Edward F. Hanify, Judge.
Action of contract by John B. Cummings against the National Shawmut Bank of Boston, tried without a jury. Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $5,300.09, and defendant brings exceptions.
Exceptions overrruled.J. W. Cummings, 2d., of Fall River, for plaintiff.
W. T. Snow, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff, a lawyer, to recover for legal services rendered the defendant, and for certain expenses incurred in connection with an action brought by the defendant against the Border City Manufacturing Company. The action was tried before a judge of the Superior Court without a jury who found for the plaintiff in the sum of $5,300.09. During the course of the trial the defendant excepted to the refusal of the judge to strike out certain testimony. The defendant also excepted to the refusal of the judge to grant certain requests for rulings and to allow a new trial.
It appears that prior to November 9, 1929, Border City Manufacturing Company owed the National Shawmut Bank of Boston $200,000 evidenced by two promissory notes, one for $65,000 and the other for $135,000. Both notes were overdue on November 9, 1929. After applying to the indebtedness of the $65,000 note the sum of $39,980.26 on deposit with the bank the indebtedness was $25,019.74 on that note and $135,000 on the other. On the above date the defendant placed with its general counsel for collection the balance of its claim and authorized its general counsel to employ the plaintiff to collect the balance by an action. The plaintiff was so employed and was directed to begin an action at once on the two notes held by the bank. In accordance with this direction he brought an action in the Superior Court in which the bank was named as plaintiff, the Border City Manufacturing Company was defendant, and the B. M. C. Durfee Trust Company was named as trustee. Service was duly made upon the defendant Border City company and trustee. Between November 12, 1929, and December, 1930, many letters passed between the plaintiff and the general counsel and the vice president of the bank relative to the claim. On February 18, 1930, the plaintiff received from the treasurer of the defendant Border City Manufacturing Company a certified check for $34,442.91, being the amount attached by trustee process in the hands of the Durfee Trust Company and on the same day forwarded it to general counsel of the National Shawmut Bank of Boston. The plaintiff in behalf of the bank claimed a jury trial and afterwards waived it. He filed interrogatories to the treasurer of the defendant in that action, which were answered.
On August 14, 1930, the treasurer of the defendant company in the original action notified this plaintiff that he wanted to pay $25,000 on account of the indebtedness of the company to the bank and was told by the plaintiff to send it directly to the bank; this was done. The plaintiff testified that he spent one and a half or two days waiting for trial in the Superior Court and informed a representative of the general counsel that the case probably would not be reached at that sitting. The plaintiff also stated that the Border City Manufacturing Company desired to pay the balance due on the $65,000 note and inquired of the general counsel if the bank would accept it and they replied in the affirmative. The plaintiff then received a check for the balance due on the note with interest, which amounted to $1,317.36, and forwarded it to the general counsel, and the $65,000 note was returned to the plaintiff and was stamped ‘paid’ by the bank. The plaintiff sent the canceled note and an interest statement to the maker by mail. On October 24, 1930, the treasurer of the Border City Manufacturing Company called upon the plaintiff and gave him a check for $5,000 and requested him to find out if the bank would reduce the interest rate on the balance of the indebtedness. The plaintiff sent this check to the general counsel of the bank to be applied on the note of Border City Manufacturing Company and wrote for instructions relative to the reduction of interest, stating that the case was on the trial list for the next session without jury in Fall River. The general counsel made reply to this letter and also stated that the plaintiff should obtain judgment as soon as possible unless notified to the contrary. The plaintiff on November 3 and 4, 1930, spent a day and a half to two days at the Superior Court waiting for the case to be reached. At that time he was informed by counsel for the Border City company that the company did not wish to have the action tried because of the publicity and because it would injure the credit of the company. Thereupon an agreement for judgment was prepared and filed in court which recited that judgment for the bank in the sum of $102,324 with costs in the sum of $31.35 was to be entered forthwith. The plaintiff mailed a copy of the agreement to the general counsel of the bank. The plaintiff also had correspondence with the vice president of the bank respecting its claim against the Border City Manufacturing Company.
The plaintiff introduced in evidence interrogatories which he filed and the answers of the defendant thereto. In its answers the defendant admitted it authorized the employment of the plaintiff and stated that after judgment it had collected from the Border City Manufacturing Company between December 20, 1930, and September 15, 1932, the sum of $33,307.09 to be applied on the judgment. During the course of the trial the plaintiff testified at length respecting the services he had rendered for the defendant in the action brought in its behalf against the Border City Manufacturing Company and then testified that in his opinion a fair and reasonable charge for such services was $6,785.62, which sum with disbursements of $13.30 made a total of $6,798.92. On cross-examination he testified that he might have spent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Peter J. McNulty Law Firm
...analysis. Under this approach, a court may consider a number of factors, originally outlined in Cummings v. National Shawmut Bank of Boston, 284 Mass. 563, 188 N.E. 489 (1934), to arrive at a determination of reasonable attorneys' fees, including the ability and reputation of the attorney, ......
-
Com. v. Gurney
...a showing to the contrary (Commonwealth v. Beaulieu, 3 Mass.App. 786, 787, 337 N.E.2d 710 (1975); see Cummings v. National Shawmut Bank, 284 Mass. 563, 568, 188 N.E. 489 (1933)), and based the convictions on counts 3 and 4 on the portions of those counts which are distinct from counts 1 and......
-
Killeen v. Westban Hotel Venture, Lp.
...factors have been used for years as guides to assessment of reasonable fees in Massachusetts cases, see Cummings v. National Shawmut Bank, 284 Mass. 563, 569, 188 N.E. 489 (1934), and continue to be useful guides to determining time reasonably spent when applying the lodestar methodology. S......
-
Commonwealth v. Sepheus
...on the law of evidence. See Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 431 Mass. 134, 141, 725 N.E.2d 1030 (2000), quoting Cummings v. National Shawmut Bank, 284 Mass. 563, 568, 188 N.E. 489 (1933); Commonwealth v. Batista, 53 Mass.App.Ct. 642, 648, 761 N.E.2d 523 (2002). Because the evidence was not admitted ......