Morganti v. Casey

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtDOLAN
Citation311 Mass. 46,40 N.E.2d 257
PartiesMORGANTI v. CASEY.
Decision Date25 February 1942

311 Mass. 46
40 N.E.2d 257

MORGANTI
v.
CASEY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Feb. 25, 1942.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Baker, Judge.

Action of contract by Joseph C. Morganti against Stephen R. Casey to recover a balance allegedly due plaintiff on account of a deposit made by plaintiff with defendant under the terms of a written contract, giving plaintiff an exclusive agency to sell the products of a company owned by defendant and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

[40 N.E.2d 257]

Before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, QUA, DOLAN, and RONAN, JJ.

A. Sigel, of Boston, for plaintiff.


G. A. McLaughlin, of Boston, for defendant.

DOLAN, Justice.

This is an action of contract in which the plaintiff seeks to recover a balance alleged to be due him on account of a deposit, made by him with the defendant under the terms of a contract in writing. The case was tried before a judge sitting without a jury, who found for the plaintiff; it now comes before us upon the defendant's exceptions to the refusal of the judge to make certain rulings in accordance with his request.

The evidence in its aspect most favorable to the plaintiff would have warranted the judge in finding the following facts. On June 5, 1929, the defendant, doing business with one Isabel under the name of the ‘Tylco Company,’ entered into a written contract for one year with the plaintiff, under the terms of which the plaintiff was given an exclusive agency to sell the products of the company in the New England States, and he agreed to sell at least two thousand units and to deposit $1,500 with the company and the company agreed to deliver to him merchandise of that value. If the plaintiff disposed of the two thousand units in the territory described within the year during which the contract was effective, he was to have the right to renew the contract annually for the territory described and for such other territories as ‘may be agreed upon.’ The plaintiff was to have a commission of thirty-seven per cent ‘on all merchandise billed to him from factory prices.’ The contract was conditioned upon the deposit of $1,500 by the plaintiff with the company, and upon his financing his own sales, but if he was unable so to do the company was to assist him in so doing at a charge of five per cent. Under the terms of the contract the plaintiff agreed to employ salesmen, to make preparations ‘to further sell, dispose of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 1 Diciembre 1944
    ...was based. Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 259 Mass. 388, 156 N.E. 712;DeFilippo v. Di Pietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742;Morganti v. Casey, 311 Mass. 46, 40 N.E.2d 257. Where, as here, a review is sought under G.L.(Ter. Ed.) c. 278, §§ 33A–33G, as amended, the evidence upon which an assignment ......
  • Berwin v. Levenson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 31 Marzo 1942
    ...v. Mroczka, 303 Mass. 343, 347, 21 N.E.2d 979;Credit Service Corp. v. Barker, 308 Mass. 476, 478, 33 N.E.2d 293;Morganti v. Casey, 311 Mass. 46, 40 N.E.2d 257. It seems plain from the wording of sections 13 and 14 that section 14 was intended to dominate section 13. If, therefore, payments ......
2 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 1 Diciembre 1944
    ...was based. Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 259 Mass. 388, 156 N.E. 712;DeFilippo v. Di Pietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742;Morganti v. Casey, 311 Mass. 46, 40 N.E.2d 257. Where, as here, a review is sought under G.L.(Ter. Ed.) c. 278, §§ 33A–33G, as amended, the evidence upon which an assignment ......
  • Berwin v. Levenson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 31 Marzo 1942
    ...v. Mroczka, 303 Mass. 343, 347, 21 N.E.2d 979;Credit Service Corp. v. Barker, 308 Mass. 476, 478, 33 N.E.2d 293;Morganti v. Casey, 311 Mass. 46, 40 N.E.2d 257. It seems plain from the wording of sections 13 and 14 that section 14 was intended to dominate section 13. If, therefore, payments ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT