Northeast Wholesale Flower Corp. v. Boston Flower Exchange
| Citation | 125 N.E.2d 237,332 Mass. 388 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Decision Date | 09 March 1955 |
| Parties | NORTHEAST WHOLESALE FLOWER CORPORATION, Inc. v. BOSTON FLOWER EXCHANGE, Inc. |
Max Kabatznick, Boston (George Michaels & Marvin N. Geller Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
Francis P. Wilcox, Jr., Framingham, for defendant.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, WILKINS and COUNIHAN, JJ.
This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing a bill of complaint brought to compel the defendant to allow the plaintiff to act as a commission dealer for the sale of flowers for one Given upon the floor of the Boston flower exchange at the space leased to Given by the defendant, and for damages.
The judge made a report of the material facts, and we have a transcript of the evidence. The facts may be briefly summarized. The defendant conducts a flower exchange on its premises in Boston on which is located a one story building with a basement. The first floor consists of a large room over which there is a glass dome or ceiling approximately one hundred feet in diameter. The defendant rents space to New England flower growers and in certain instances to commission salesmen. Although the spaces rented are referred to as stalls, the space itself usually consists of the top or a part of the top of a table, four or five feet square, where the growers display flowers to retail florists and dealers. The defendant on February 1, 1951, leased to Given 'Stall No. 283' for the term of one year ending on January 31, 1952, and for a term thereafter to continue on and after said date from year to year until either party on or before December 31 during the term of the lease should notify the other in writing that he intended to terminate the lease on the following January 31. The lease has since continued in full force and effect. Given in December, 1952, made an arrangement with the plaintiff in accordance with which the plaintiff agreed to sell on commission, at the stall leased to Given, flowers grown by Given. The written request of Given dated December 27, 1952, to the defendant to permit the plaintiff to act as commission agent for him in this market place was refused by the defendant. It was the long established and universal custom that, although not mentioned in the leases, the lessees could not permit or allow commission agents to act for them on the floor of the exchange without first obtaining permission from the defendant.
The defendant in its answer sets up various defences. It admits that it refused to allow the plaintiff to act as a commission dealer for Given in selling flowers in the exchange and based the refusal upon different grounds including a business custom and usage of the defendant. We need discuss only this defence for we are satisfied that the judge was not plainly wrong in finding the existence of such a custom. Warner v. Selectmen of Amherst, 326 Mass. 435, 95 N.E.2d 180; 291 Washington St., Inc., v. School St. Liquors, Inc., 331 Mass. 150, 117 N.E.2d 809. That was a question of fact. Daniels v. Hudson River Fire Ins. Co., 12 Cush. 416, 429; Cronan v. Hornblower, 211 Mass. 538, 541, 98 N.E. 504; Berwick & Smith Co. v. Salem Press, Inc., 331 Mass. 196, 198, 117 N.E.2d 825.
The defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial