Murphy v. O'Rourke

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Murphy v. O'Rourke

238 N.E.2d 871, 354 Mass. 770, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 964

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 12, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 238 N.E.2d 871 (Murphy v. O'Rourke) 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

Murphy v. O'Rourke, 238 N.E.2d 871, 354 Mass. 770, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 964 (Mass. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of contract in two counts, both for the same cause of action (a real estate broker’s commission), the judge directed verdicts for the defendant. Count 1 alleged an express contract; count 2 was in quantum meruit. There was no error in directing the verdict on the opening in count 2. The allegation was that the plaintiff undertook to sell the defendant’s property whereas the opening showed that no sale had been effected and that no binding agreement to sell had been made. Simon v. Lettiere, 257 Mass. 563, 570. See Cheng v. Chin Wai Yip, 339 Mass. 173,175. Burns v. Barry, 353 Mass. 115,117. On count 1 the verdict was directed when the plaintiff offered no evidence following the exclusion of testimony of an attorney called as a witness by the plaintiff regarding a conversation between the attorney and the defendant. The [771]*771plaintiff’s offer of proof on the excluded question was not a delineation of an answer which the witness was competent to make but rather was a statement framed in the language of count 1 giving the legal effect of the conversation. See Foley v. Hotel Touraine Co. 326 Mass. 742, 745. It is unnecessary to discuss whether the excluded matter was within the attorney-client privilege.

Joseph J. Hurley for the plaintiff. Manuel Katz for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

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

In this action of contract in two counts, both for the same cause of action (a real estate broker’s commission), the judge directed verdicts for the defendant. Count 1 alleged an express contract; count 2 was in quantum meruit. There was no error in directing the verdict on the opening in count 2. The allegation was that the plaintiff undertook to sell the defendant’s property whereas the opening showed that no sale had been effected and that no binding agreement to sell had been made. Simon v. Lettiere, 257 Mass. 563, 570. See Cheng v. Chin Wai Yip, 339 Mass. 173,175. Burns v. Barry, 353 Mass. 115,117. On count 1 the verdict was directed when the plaintiff offered no evidence following the exclusion of testimony of an attorney called as a witness by the plaintiff regarding a conversation between the attorney and the defendant. The [771]*771plaintiff’s offer of proof on the excluded question was not a delineation of an answer which the witness was competent to make but rather was a statement framed in the language of count 1 giving the legal effect of the conversation. See Foley v. Hotel Touraine Co. 326 Mass. 742, 745. It is unnecessary to discuss whether the excluded matter was within the attorney-client privilege.

Joseph J. Hurley for the plaintiff. Manuel Katz for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 N.E.2d 871, 354 Mass. 770, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-orourke-mass-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack