Dillon v. Claman

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Dillon v. Claman

357 N.E.2d 19, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 852, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 656

DecidedNovember 23, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 357 N.E.2d 19 (Dillon v. Claman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dillon v. Claman, 357 N.E.2d 19, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 852, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 656 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

It is clear from the master’s subsidiary findings (see particularly par. 15) and the exhibits attached to his report (see particularly exhibit C) that the broker was the agent of the plaintiffs and not of the defendants. See Gil-Bern Constr. Corp. v. Medford, 357 Mass. 620, 622-623 (1970), and cases cited therein. Nothing contained in the record disputes the defendants’ contention that there was no writing (see particularly general finding number 4: [853]*853“plaintiffs have failed to produce a writing...”) sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds (G. L. c. 259, § 1).

The case was submitted on briefs. Walter J. Griffin & Lawrence H. Fisher for the plaintiffs. Stanley B. Milton & William C. O’Neil, Jr., for the defendants.

Judgments affirmed with double costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

It is clear from the master’s subsidiary findings (see particularly par. 15) and the exhibits attached to his report (see particularly exhibit C) that the broker was the agent of the plaintiffs and not of the defendants. See Gil-Bern Constr. Corp. v. Medford, 357 Mass. 620, 622-623 (1970), and cases cited therein. Nothing contained in the record disputes the defendants’ contention that there was no writing (see particularly general finding number 4: [853]*853“plaintiffs have failed to produce a writing...”) sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds (G. L. c. 259, § 1).

The case was submitted on briefs. Walter J. Griffin & Lawrence H. Fisher for the plaintiffs. Stanley B. Milton & William C. O’Neil, Jr., for the defendants.

Judgments affirmed with double costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 N.E.2d 19, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 852, 1976 Mass. App. LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillon-v-claman-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack