Rosenthal v. Schwartz

101 N.E. 1070, 214 Mass. 371, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1156
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 20, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 101 N.E. 1070 (Rosenthal v. Schwartz) 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
Rosenthal v. Schwartz, 101 N.E. 1070, 214 Mass. 371, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1156 (Mass. 1913).

Opinion

Braley, J.

If it be assumed that the premises were part of the intestate’s estate, the defendant, even if as vendor he purported to act in his representative capacity as administrator, is personally bound by the stipulations with the plaintiff. Luscomb v. Ballard, 5 Gray, 403, 405. Durkin v. Langley, 167 Mass. 577, 578. Lyman v. National Bank of the Republic, 181 Mass. 437, 438. Tuttle v. First National Bank of Greenfield, 187 Mass. 533, 535. Dunham v. Blood, 207 Mass. 512. King v. Stowell, 211 Mass. 246, 250, 251.

But, as there has been no conveyance, the defendant contends that because payment was to be made “when title is passed” the action has been prematurely brought. The contract of sale apparently had been entered into after the plaintiff procured a purchaser, and, payment of his commission not having been made conditional upon actual performance of the agreement, ordinarily it had been earned and was payable. Goodnough v. Kinney, 205 Mass. 203, 204. The purchaser attended at the time and place named for the delivery of the deed and the payment of the price; the defendant, however, did not attend, but made default. It is at least uncertain whether the purchaser, although desirous of completing the purchase, could have compelled specific performance in a court of equity, and the plaintiff, through the defendant’s unexplained failure of performance, would be deprived under the construction contended for of the value of his services and eventually might lose his claim. Burk v. Schreiber, 183 Mass. 35, 36. Wenz v. Pastene, 209 Mass. 359, 364. The transfer of title merely designated the period beyond which the plaintiff need not wait for his compensation, which had been fixed at a definite sum, and the trial court correctly held that the defendant could not escape liability by setting up his own breach in bar. Alvord v. Cook, 174 Mass. 120, 124, 125. Carnes v. Howard, 180 Mass. 569. Bartow v. Parsons Pulp & Paper Co. 208 Mass. 232, 234.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Tristram's Landing, Inc. v. Wait
327 N.E.2d 727 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1975)
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Crocker
54 Mass. App. Dec. 88 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1974)
Gaynor v. Laverdure
291 N.E.2d 617 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1973)
Cisco v. Zussman
46 Mass. App. Dec. 15 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1971)
A. J. Wolfe Co. v. Baltimore Contractors, Inc.
244 N.E.2d 717 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1969)
LeDonne v. Slade
38 Mass. App. Dec. 83 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1967)
Edward Swartz, Inc. v. Saunders
184 N.E.2d 68 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
McCarthy v. Daggett
183 N.E.2d 502 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
E. Van Noorden Co. v. Hartford Roofing & Sheet Metal Co.
147 N.E.2d 749 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
Ober v. Joia
9 Mass. App. Dec. 28 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1955)
Reilly v. Whiting
127 N.E.2d 567 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1955)
Remington v. Crimmins
10 Mass. App. Div. 125 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1945)
Selkowitz v. Perlin
10 Mass. App. Div. 114 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1945)
Baszynski v. Husband
5 Mass. App. Div. 164 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1940)
Proctor v. Wallace
5 Mass. App. Div. 225 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1940)
Forbes v. Gordon & Gerber, Inc.
2 Mass. App. Div. 121 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Seward
2 N.E.2d 448 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Wm. Lindeke Land Co. v. Kalman
252 N.W. 650 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1934)
Burton v. Saunders
8 Ohio Law. Abs. 36 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1929)
Canton v. Thomas
162 N.E. 769 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 N.E. 1070, 214 Mass. 371, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenthal-v-schwartz-mass-1913.