Beacon Co-operative Bank v. Glassman

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Beacon Co-operative Bank v. Glassman

327 N.E.2d 726, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 751

DecidedMay 16, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 327 N.E.2d 726 (Beacon Co-operative Bank v. Glassman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beacon Co-operative Bank v. Glassman, 327 N.E.2d 726, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 751 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

The identical demurrers of Weinberg, Feinstein, Adler and Marcus to the “counterclaim” against them which the defendant Glass-man sought to include in his answer to the plaintiff’s original bill were properly sustained on the eighth (if on no other) ground of each demurrer, which was that “the Counterclaim and Bill for Declaratory Judgment... contained in said Classman’s answer are improperly included therein.” 1. None of the named demurrants was a party to the original bill, as was required by the first sentence and by (a) of the second sentence of Rule 32 of the Superior Court (1954). Contrast Scullin v. Cities Serv. Oil Co. 304 Mass. 75, 84-85 (1939); Davis & O’Connor Co. v. Shell Oil Co. Inc. 311 Mass. 401, 405 (1942); Stubbert v. Sergio, 335 Mass. 91, 92-93 (1956); Mackey v. Rootes Motors Inc. 348 Mass. 464, 466 (1965). 2. The “counterclaim” was obviously not “against the plaintiff alone,” as was required for a counterclaim filed under (b) of the second sentence of Rule 32. 3. Nor could Classman derive any assistance from the fourth paragraph of that rule; for all that appears, it would have been possible for him to secure “complete relief” on his mixed bag of allegations against the plaintiff without the presence of any of the named demurrants. Contrast Colella v. Essex County Acceptance Corp. 288 Mass. 221, 224, 230 (1934); Labelle v. Lafleche, 289 Mass. 140, 143 (1935). The interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrers of Weinberg, Feinstein, Adler and Marcus and the final decree are affirmed.

So ordered.

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

The identical demurrers of Weinberg, Feinstein, Adler and Marcus to the “counterclaim” against them which the defendant Glass-man sought to include in his answer to the plaintiff’s original bill were properly sustained on the eighth (if on no other) ground of each demurrer, which was that “the Counterclaim and Bill for Declaratory Judgment... contained in said Classman’s answer are improperly included therein.” 1. None of the named demurrants was a party to the original bill, as was required by the first sentence and by (a) of the second sentence of Rule 32 of the Superior Court (1954). Contrast Scullin v. Cities Serv. Oil Co. 304 Mass. 75, 84-85 (1939); Davis & O’Connor Co. v. Shell Oil Co. Inc. 311 Mass. 401, 405 (1942); Stubbert v. Sergio, 335 Mass. 91, 92-93 (1956); Mackey v. Rootes Motors Inc. 348 Mass. 464, 466 (1965). 2. The “counterclaim” was obviously not “against the plaintiff alone,” as was required for a counterclaim filed under (b) of the second sentence of Rule 32. 3. Nor could Classman derive any assistance from the fourth paragraph of that rule; for all that appears, it would have been possible for him to secure “complete relief” on his mixed bag of allegations against the plaintiff without the presence of any of the named demurrants. Contrast Colella v. Essex County Acceptance Corp. 288 Mass. 221, 224, 230 (1934); Labelle v. Lafleche, 289 Mass. 140, 143 (1935). The interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrers of Weinberg, Feinstein, Adler and Marcus and the final decree are affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 N.E.2d 726, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beacon-co-operative-bank-v-glassman-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack