Crandall Dry Dock Engineers, Inc. v. Gloucester Marine Railways Corp.
This text of 135 N.E.2d 12 (Crandall Dry Dock Engineers, Inc. v. Gloucester Marine Railways Corp.) 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.
Opinion
Exceptions overruled. This is an action of contract to recover a balance due for materials and services furnished by [705]*705the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff filed an affidavit of no defence. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 59B. The defendant filed a counter affidavit which the plaintiff contends was insufficient. The plaintiff alleges an exception to the denial of its motion for judgment, and argues that there is presented an order decisive of the case founded upon matter of law apparent on the record. There was no error. The denial of the motion for judgment presents merely an interlocutory matter. Lawrence v. Old Silver Beach, Inc. 303 Mass. 377, 378. Scola v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 326 Mass. 180, 181. Thayer Co. v. Binnall, 326 Mass. 467, 471. On the merits there likewise would be no error. Under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 59B, the judge, on these facts, was not required to enter an order for judgment, but could, as he did, advance the case to the short list for trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
135 N.E.2d 12, 334 Mass. 704, 1956 Mass. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crandall-dry-dock-engineers-inc-v-gloucester-marine-railways-corp-mass-1956.