Taylor v. Rosenberg

106 N.E. 603, 219 Mass. 113, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1496
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 24, 1914·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Sheldon, J.

These exceptions relate only to the first count of the plaintiff’s declaration.

The special contract found to have been made between the parties was not champertous. The plaintiff in any event was to be paid for what he was to do. Both parties treated it as certain that the defendant must recover some compensation for the taking of his land by the railroad company. It was merely the amount of the plaintiff’s compensation that was made dependent upon the amount so to be recovered. The facts here presented are stronger for the plaintiff than those which appeared in Hadlock v. Brooks, 178 Mass. 425; and the decision there rendered is decisive in favor of this plaintiff.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Taylor v. Rosenberg, 106 N.E. 603, 219 Mass. 113, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1496 (Mass. 1914).

106 N.E. 603 (Taylor v. Rosenberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Berman v. Carroll
1 Mass. L. Rptr. 456 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 1994)
McInerney v. Massasoit Greyhound Association, Inc.
269 N.E.2d 211 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1971)
Titlebaum v. Tobin
7 Mass. App. Div. 69 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1942)
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. J. Mannos & Sons, Inc.
191 N.E. 438 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Holdsworth v. Healey
249 Mass. 436 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)