Boat Mondego, Inc. v. Fulham Bros.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Boat Mondego, Inc. v. Fulham Bros.

383 N.E.2d 544, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 958

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 383 N.E.2d 544 (Boat Mondego, Inc. v. Fulham Bros.) 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

Boat Mondego, Inc. v. Fulham Bros., 383 N.E.2d 544, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 958 (Mass. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff (Boat Mondego) here is seeking indemnification from Fulham Brothers, Inc. (Fulham), and Gorton’s of Gloucester, Inc. (Gorton), and the city of New Bedford (city). All but the city were codefendants with the plaintiff in an earlier action of tort in which a money judgment adverse to Boat Mondego was entered (and satisfied); Fulham and Gorton, however, were granted directed verdicts. Fulham and Gorton are contending here that the "plaintiffs appeal on the tort counts was not properly taken” for failure to comply with Mass.R.Civ.P. 46, 365 Mass. 811 (1974), and Mass.R.A.P. 3(a), 365 Mass. 845 (1974). However, it appears from the record that the plaintiff has failed to comply with Mass.R.A.P. 4, 365 Mass. 846 (1974), with regard to its appeal from the final judgments entered on September 20,1976; thus, as the notice of appeal was not filed within the thirty-day period allowed by Mass.R.A.P. 4, the appeal from the final judgment as well as that from the earlier interlocutory orders must be dismissed. See Labor Relations Commn. v. Townsend, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 904 (1974). See also Albano v. Bonanza Intl. Dev. Co., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 692, 694 (1977).

So ordered.

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

The plaintiff (Boat Mondego) here is seeking indemnification from Fulham Brothers, Inc. (Fulham), and Gorton’s of Gloucester, Inc. (Gorton), and the city of New Bedford (city). All but the city were codefendants with the plaintiff in an earlier action of tort in which a money judgment adverse to Boat Mondego was entered (and satisfied); Fulham and Gorton, however, were granted directed verdicts. Fulham and Gorton are contending here that the "plaintiffs appeal on the tort counts was not properly taken” for failure to comply with Mass.R.Civ.P. 46, 365 Mass. 811 (1974), and Mass.R.A.P. 3(a), 365 Mass. 845 (1974). However, it appears from the record that the plaintiff has failed to comply with Mass.R.A.P. 4, 365 Mass. 846 (1974), with regard to its appeal from the final judgments entered on September 20,1976; thus, as the notice of appeal was not filed within the thirty-day period allowed by Mass.R.A.P. 4, the appeal from the final judgment as well as that from the earlier interlocutory orders must be dismissed. See Labor Relations Commn. v. Townsend, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 904 (1974). See also Albano v. Bonanza Intl. Dev. Co., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 692, 694 (1977).

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 N.E.2d 544, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boat-mondego-inc-v-fulham-bros-massappct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack