Milewski v. ROFLAN COMPANY, Civ. A. No. 59-705-C.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 59-705-C. |
| Citation | 195 F. Supp. 68 |
| Parties | Chester A. MILEWSKI, Plaintiff, v. ROFLAN COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Maurice F. Maher, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Martin W. Cohen, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
This is an action of contract brought by Chester A. Milewski, a citizen of the State of New Jersey, against The Roflan Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with a principal place of business located in Topsfield, Massachusetts. Plaintiff alleges that the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000 and bases his action upon an alleged written agreement executed by the parties on or about June 24, 1955, under the terms of which plaintiff claims that he was to act as exclusive sales representative for the defendant corporation in the Philadelphia area. Plaintiff alleges performance on his part and breach on the part of the defendant.
The defendant has answered, in substance has denied plaintiff's affirmative allegations, and has counterclaimed for damages based on an alleged breach of loyalty on the part of plaintiff.
The action was filed on September 11, 1959, and thereafter the parties through their counsel engaged in certain pretrial discovery, consisting of the filing and answering of interrogatories, filing and argument of motions, etc. On December 7, 1960, the plaintiff and the president of the defendant corporation, with their respective attorneys, met at the courthouse in Springfield, Massachusetts, for the purpose of taking the deposition of the plaintiff. A stenographer was present for this purpose. Prior to the commencement of the actual taking of the deposition, a conference took place between Attorneys Sokol and Teahan, the then attorneys of record for plaintiff, and Attorney Cohen, counsel for defendant. The attorneys discussed the possible out-of-court settlement of this case. After this conference the attorneys conferred with their respective clients for some period and then returned for a further discussion amongst the attorneys. After this second conference among the attorneys they again returned to their respective clients, each of whom was physically present in the courthouse, and after the second conference between the attorneys and their respective clients, a third and final conference of the attorneys alone took place. At this final conference, Attorney Teahan informed Attorney Cohen that the plaintiff would accept Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) in full settlement of the case, and the attorneys agreed that papers would be executed disposing of both the claim and the counterclaim. It was further agreed that the necessary papers and releases would be prepared by Attorney Cohen.
Thereafter, Attorney Cohen, after conferring with the deputy clerk of this court, prepared releases and an agreement for judgment, and forwarded same to Attorney Sokol. These papers were never returned, executed or unexecuted, to Attorney Cohen. After some period of time Attorney Sokol advised Attorney Cohen that his client was busy and stated that the papers would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Rourke v. Jason Inc., Civil Action No. 94-30167-MAP.
...had actual authority to enter a binding settlement. Compare Michaud v. Michaud, 932 F.2d 77, 81 (1st Cir.1991), and Milewski v. Roflan Co., 195 F.Supp. 68, 69 (D.Mass.1961) (denying motion to enforce settlement agreement finding attorney lacked authority to bind client). See also Mason & Di......
-
Horney v. Westfield Gage Co.
...Michaud v. Michaud, 932 F.2d 77 (1st Cir.1991), Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc. v. Glover, 975 F.2d 1298 (7th Cir.1992), and Milewski v. Roflan Co. 195 F.Supp. 68 (D.Mass.1961), and other cases where authority was cloudy. It is also clear that the settlement was complete as to its essential terms......
-
Petition of Mal de Mer Fisheries, Inc., Civ. A. No. 94-10211-PBS.
...not encompass the authority to settle a case); Garabedian v. Allstates Eng'g Co., 811 F.2d 802, 803 (3d Cir.1987); Milewski v. Roflan Co., 195 F.Supp. 68, 70 (D.Mass.1961). Where an attorney is merely an agent for his client with respect to negotiation and settlement, the client's approval ......
-
Luis C. Forteza e Hijos, Inc. v. Mills
...Parker, 7 Cranch 436, 11 U.S. 436, 3 L.Ed. 396 (1813); Barber-Colman Co. v. Magnano Corp., 299 F. 401 (1st Cir. 1924); Milewski v. Roflan Co., 195 F.Supp. 68 (D.Mass.1961). But while a client is not bound by his attorney's unauthorized agreement to compromise, he may have to suffer the cons......