In which my grandfather, Isaac Stachowitz, represented by Benjamin L. Berman, of Lewiston and Jacob H. Berman, of
Portland, took on a Boston Company for breach of contract, and won!
This story also holds the long-sought answer to the question of why the family moved to Maine.
How I discovered this: I did a last name search on Newspapers.com
|
|
| Isaac Stachowitz circa 1925 |
Barron, Anderson Co. circa 1921 |
| The story of Berman & Simmons began in 1914 when Benjamin Berman hung a shingle on Lisbon Street in Lewiston, Maine. Berman and his brother David became known as trusted advocates for the men and women who worked at the city’s many textile mills and shoe factories. Their commitment to working Mainers and their willingness to take on the most complex and controversial cases remain hallmarks of the firm today. |
March 7, 1922: Lewiston Evening Journal
The plaintiff is a pressman by trade, and the defendant company are manufacturers of men’s clothing. In the fall of 1920, they closed their Boston factory, came to Lewiston and established a factory at 22 Park street. Last June they signed a contract with Stachowitz, offering him work for a year at a weekly wage of $75. There was no controversy over the contract, which was offered as evidence, the defendants merely claiming that it was not broken.
Stachowitz testified that he moved his family to Auburn, placed his children in the Auburn schools, as he intended to take up his permanent residence here, and went to work in the Lewiston factory. He said he received $75 per week according to the agreement until September, when he learned that the company intended to move the factory back to Boston. |
March 10, 1922: The Lewiston Daily Sun
$2128 awarded
June 30, 1922: Portland Evening Express & Advertiser
Appeal
January 13, 1923: Lewiston Evening Journal
Superior Court
March 21, 1923: The Lewiston Daily Sun
Superior Court adds interest
December 5, 1923: The Lewiston Daily Sun
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine to hear case
December 20, 1923: Daily Kennebec Journal
Exceptions overruled. Original contract holds.
|
