Finkelstein v. Sneierson
Decision Date | 03 December 1930 |
Parties | FINKELSTEIN v. SNEIERSON. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Patrick M. Keating, Judge.
Action by Bessie Finkelstein, administratrix, against Samuel L. Sneierson. After verdict for plaintiff, the trial judge entered verdict for defendant, in accordance with leave reserved, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions sustained, and judgment for plaintiff on the verdict.
Wendell P. Murray and Alexander D. Diamond, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
William M. Blatt, of Boston, for defendant.
The declaration alleges that the defendant on or about November 28, 1919, executed and delivered to the plaintiff a certain agreement under seal by the terms of which the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $2,250 in installments, as therein set forth; and that the defendant has wholly neglected and refused to pay said sum or any part thereof. The answer pleads a general denial, payment, absence of consideration and the statute of limitations.
The agreement upon which the action is brought reads as follows:
‘[Signed] Samuel L. Sneierson [Seal]
‘[Signed] Max Finkelstein [Seal].’
At the trial in the superior court before a judge and jury the plaintiff testified that she was the administratrix of the estate of her husband, Max Finkelstein, and that she had often talked with him respecting the notes executed by the defendant. The plaintiff also produced as a witness a daughter of the intestate who testified that ‘her father had stated about six years ago that he would buy or build a house when the Sneierson matter was settled.’
The defendant testified that he made payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement, occasionally making payments in amounts larger than the sum due monthly; that all payments were made by checks, the final one for $200 being delivered in December, 1921, and on this occasion Finkelstein gave him a receipt in full; that the last six payments were made by his brother under a power of attorney authorizing him to sign checks in the name of the defendant; that all of his checks and the receipt were kept by him in a wooden box on his desk at his place of business, and were destroyed by fire in April, 1928. The defendant's brother testified to the same effect in regard to the last six payments and to the giving of the receipt by Finkelstein in December, 1921.
The case was submitted to the jury solely upon the question of payment, the judge reserving leave to enter a verdict for the defendant if upon the questions raised, and the evidence introduced, such a verdict ought to be entered. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the amount set forth in the declaration, with interest; the judge, thereafter, entered a verdict for the defendant in accordance with the leave reserved. The case is before us on the plaintiff's exceptions.
The action is brought, not upon the notes executed by the defendant, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holber v. Suffolk Constr. Co. (In re Red Rock Servs. Co.)
...49 (1st Cir.2002); see also Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Whiting Co., 276 Mass. 528, 177 N.E. 568, 574 (1931); Finkelstein v. Sneierson, 273 Mass. 424, 173 N.E. 703, 704 (1930). Trustee urges me to narrowly interpret United States Steel. He argues that, although the contractual remedies do no......
-
In re Medico Associates, Inc.
...and the City has not countered with sufficient evidence to establish the payment of this obligation. See Finkelstein v. Snierson, 273 Mass. 424, 173 N.E. 703 (1930); Goodyear Service Stores v. Gustafson, 16 Mass.App.Dec. 8 (1958); see also 60 Am.Jur.2d Payment § 141. The payments made by Ne......
-
Talbot v. Rednalloh Co.
...immaterial since the defendant would be bound by the reasonable construction placed upon its acts by the lessors. Finkelstein v. Sneierson, 273 Mass. 424, 428, 173 N. E. 703. If it is true, as the defendant contends, that the agreement of October 3, 1922, did not result in a change of the d......
-
U.S. Steel v. M. Dematteo Const. Co.
...Jan. 15, 2002)("[U]nder Massachusetts law, expressly stated remedies are not automatically exclusive."); Finkelstein v. Sneierson, 273 Mass. 424, 173 N.E. 703, 704 (1930) ("[T]he remedy provided [in the agreement] was not exclusive of the plaintiff's right to maintain an action for damages ......