Gorfinkle v. Stroyman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Gorfinkle v. Stroyman

173 N.E.2d 81, 342 Mass. 775

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 3, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 N.E.2d 81 (Gorfinkle v. Stroyman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gorfinkle v. Stroyman, 173 N.E.2d 81, 342 Mass. 775 (Mass. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed. There was ample evidence upon which the probate judge could find that reasonable and just compensation for the legal services rendered by the petitioner is $2,000 and not the sum of $6,200 which the petitioner claims should have been awarded. The petitioner argues that the decree of the trial judge was based “upon conclusions of fact both incomplete and unsupported either by his own subsidiary findings or by unconflicting evidence of record.” We do not agree. There was considerable testimony by the petitioner and the respondent Sumner Stroyman, and the judge made a detailed report of the material facts. The conclusion of the trial judge is not an error in law and his findings of fact are to be sustained unless they are plainly wrong. Willett v. Willett, 333 Mass. 323, 324. Zelman v. Killion, 337 Mass. 666, 669.

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

Decree affirmed. There was ample evidence upon which the probate judge could find that reasonable and just compensation for the legal services rendered by the petitioner is $2,000 and not the sum of $6,200 which the petitioner claims should have been awarded. The petitioner argues that the decree of the trial judge was based “upon conclusions of fact both incomplete and unsupported either by his own subsidiary findings or by unconflicting evidence of record.” We do not agree. There was considerable testimony by the petitioner and the respondent Sumner Stroyman, and the judge made a detailed report of the material facts. The conclusion of the trial judge is not an error in law and his findings of fact are to be sustained unless they are plainly wrong. Willett v. Willett, 333 Mass. 323, 324. Zelman v. Killion, 337 Mass. 666, 669.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 N.E.2d 81, 342 Mass. 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorfinkle-v-stroyman-mass-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack