Jablonski v. Rojcewicz

• Decision Date: 09 October 1923
• Citation: 141 N.E. 77,246 Mass. 336
• Parties: JABLONSKI et al. v. ROJCEWICZ.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

246 Mass. 336

141 N.E. 77

JABLONSKI et al.

v.ROJCEWICZ.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Oct. 9, 1923.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; F. W. Fosdick, Judge.

Action of contract by Frank M. Jablonski and others against Felician Rojcewica. Report of auditor finding in favor of plaintiffs was confirmed and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

Plaintiffs sued to recover $3,000 for legal services rendered defendant in connection with financial difficulties of the Bay State Syndicate, Inc. As found by the auditor, defendant had been treasurer and general manager of the syndicate, and was liable on some of its obligations, and also represented to plaintiffs that he wished to protect stockholders who had become such through his influence and because of their confidence in him. He engaged plaintiffs to do everything they could to save his good name and the business, and assented to their statement that they would charge $5,000. Part of the company's obligations were held by the Park Trust Company, which refused to furnish any money to assist the corporation, but plaintiffs procured the Bancroft Trust Company to advance $20,000, which, with $6,700 raised by defendant, was used in settling with creditors at a percentage of their claims. In such settlement the control of the business was placed in the hands of persons appointed by the trust company, and defendant was relieved of his duties and was also released from all obligations, except on notes for the money advanced at the time of the settlement, and on another note for $3,500, the holders of which notes apparently refused to release defendant, but had also taken the company's notes. When the plans for financing the company were completed, plaintiffs and defendant had a talk relative to payment for plaintiffs' services, and, at defendant's suggestion, $1,500 of the account was charged against the corporation, but no part thereof had been paid, and plaintiffs did not intend to enforce collection by suit. Defendant contended that he did not hire plaintiffs personally, but as attorneys for the corporation; but the auditor found that he hired them personally, and that he and plaintiffs compromised, and plaintiffs agreed to take $3,000 and a claim against the corporation for $1,500, and that defendant agreed to the compromise. Defendant requested rulings that plaintiffs' services had not saved the business, and that the contract had not been completed; that the change of trust companies was merely a change in financial agents, and the business had not been saved; that by charging $1,500 for services to the syndicate plaintiffs waived that amount of their charge of $3,000 against defend...