Weisman v. Rubinovitz

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Weisman v. Rubinovitz

238 N.E.2d 365, 354 Mass. 765, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 953

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 29, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 N.E.2d 365 (Weisman v. Rubinovitz) 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

Weisman v. Rubinovitz, 238 N.E.2d 365, 354 Mass. 765, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 953 (Mass. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a bill in equity to compel the redelivery to the plaintiff of fifty shares of common stock in the defendant Industrial Surplus, Inc. which were alleged to have been in the possession of the defendants. The defendant Rubinovitz contends that the plaintiff is entitled to only thirty-three and one-third shares. A j,udge in the Superior Court ordered that the plaintiff receive a certificate for fifty shares, and made a report of the material facts found by him. G. L. [766]*766c. 214, §23. Birnbaum v. Pamoukis, 301 Mass. 559. The defendants appealed from a final decree. The testimony, consisting of 202 mimeographed pages, is reported. The defendants contend that the judge’s conclusion is plainly wrong, and submit a very short brief which consists of little more than assertion. It would add nothing to our jurisprudence to record a long written analysis of this factual controversy. We are of opinion that the judge’s award of fifty shares was supported by the evidence. The contention of the defendants’ counsel that he was entitled to one share, if correct, as to which we express no opinion, does not vitiate that award.

S. Myron Klarfeld for the defendants. Sheldon Newman (Samuel Leader with him) for the plaintiff.

Decree affirmed with costs.

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

This is a bill in equity to compel the redelivery to the plaintiff of fifty shares of common stock in the defendant Industrial Surplus, Inc. which were alleged to have been in the possession of the defendants. The defendant Rubinovitz contends that the plaintiff is entitled to only thirty-three and one-third shares. A j,udge in the Superior Court ordered that the plaintiff receive a certificate for fifty shares, and made a report of the material facts found by him. G. L. [766]*766c. 214, §23. Birnbaum v. Pamoukis, 301 Mass. 559. The defendants appealed from a final decree. The testimony, consisting of 202 mimeographed pages, is reported. The defendants contend that the judge’s conclusion is plainly wrong, and submit a very short brief which consists of little more than assertion. It would add nothing to our jurisprudence to record a long written analysis of this factual controversy. We are of opinion that the judge’s award of fifty shares was supported by the evidence. The contention of the defendants’ counsel that he was entitled to one share, if correct, as to which we express no opinion, does not vitiate that award.

S. Myron Klarfeld for the defendants. Sheldon Newman (Samuel Leader with him) for the plaintiff.

Decree affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 N.E.2d 365, 354 Mass. 765, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weisman-v-rubinovitz-mass-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack