Commonwealth v. Stuyvesant Insurance

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Stuyvesant Insurance

391 N.E.2d 277, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 871, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1033

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJune 29, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 391 N.E.2d 277 (Commonwealth v. Stuyvesant Insurance) 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

Commonwealth v. Stuyvesant Insurance, 391 N.E.2d 277, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 871, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1033 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

1. The allegations in the affidavits of the defendant’s agent to the effect that the defendants in the three underlying criminal cases may have been defaulted improperly due to insufficiency of notice were "made on information and belief, as opposed to personal knowledge, [and thus] are to be disregarded in considering a motion for summary judgment.” Shapiro Equip. Corp. v. Morris & Son Constr. Corp., 369 Mass. 968 (1976). See Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755, 763 n.12 (1976). 2. The contention that the courts’ removal of prior defaults by the defendant’s principals in two of the cases, coupled with releases of the principals without notice to the defendant, had the effect of discharging the defendant as surety, was decided adversely to the defendant in Commonwealth v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 366 Mass. 611, 617-618, & nn.8, 9 (1975). 3. Nothing in our statutes or in the case last cited requires that a surety be notified whenever its principal is required to appear in court. 4. The defendants in the underlying criminal cases were not indispensable parties to the present actions by the Commonwealth against the surety. New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Weymouth, 97 F. Supp. 565, 566 (D. Mass. 1951).

Judgments affirmed.

Jeffrey M. Smith for the defendant. James W. Sahakian, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

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

1. The allegations in the affidavits of the defendant’s agent to the effect that the defendants in the three underlying criminal cases may have been defaulted improperly due to insufficiency of notice were "made on information and belief, as opposed to personal knowledge, [and thus] are to be disregarded in considering a motion for summary judgment.” Shapiro Equip. Corp. v. Morris & Son Constr. Corp., 369 Mass. 968 (1976). See Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755, 763 n.12 (1976). 2. The contention that the courts’ removal of prior defaults by the defendant’s principals in two of the cases, coupled with releases of the principals without notice to the defendant, had the effect of discharging the defendant as surety, was decided adversely to the defendant in Commonwealth v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 366 Mass. 611, 617-618, & nn.8, 9 (1975). 3. Nothing in our statutes or in the case last cited requires that a surety be notified whenever its principal is required to appear in court. 4. The defendants in the underlying criminal cases were not indispensable parties to the present actions by the Commonwealth against the surety. New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Weymouth, 97 F. Supp. 565, 566 (D. Mass. 1951).

Judgments affirmed.

Jeffrey M. Smith for the defendant. James W. Sahakian, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 N.E.2d 277, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 871, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-stuyvesant-insurance-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack