Gibbs Oil Co. v. Goodoak

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Gibbs Oil Co. v. Goodoak

397 N.E.2d 1153, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 947, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1079

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 397 N.E.2d 1153 (Gibbs Oil Co. v. Goodoak) 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

Gibbs Oil Co. v. Goodoak, 397 N.E.2d 1153, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 947, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1079 (Mass. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

We pass the question whether par. 20 of the defendant’s answer was sufficient to raise the affirmative defence of novation (see Mass. R.Civ.P. 8[c], 365 Mass. 750 [1974]) because the undisputed facts set out in pars. 7,11 and 15 through 17 of the defendant’s answers to interrogatories and in his affidavit in opposition to the motion for sum[948]*948mary judgment are insufficient as matter of law to warrant a finding that the plaintiff discharged the defendant from any existing liability to it. See Traveler Shoe Co. v. Koch, 216 Mass. 412, 415 (1914); Kirtley v. C.G. Galbo Co., 244 Mass. 179, 182-183 (1923); Larson v. Jeffrey-Nichols Motor Co., 279 Mass. 362, 365-366 (1932); Tudor Press, Inc. v. University Distrib. Co., 292 Mass. 339, 341 (1935); Harvard Elec. & Mach. Co. v. G & K Provision Co., 333 Mass. 678, 682-683 (1956).

The case was submitted on briefs. Richard H. Wynn for the defendant. William Coniaris for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

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

We pass the question whether par. 20 of the defendant’s answer was sufficient to raise the affirmative defence of novation (see Mass. R.Civ.P. 8[c], 365 Mass. 750 [1974]) because the undisputed facts set out in pars. 7,11 and 15 through 17 of the defendant’s answers to interrogatories and in his affidavit in opposition to the motion for sum[948]*948mary judgment are insufficient as matter of law to warrant a finding that the plaintiff discharged the defendant from any existing liability to it. See Traveler Shoe Co. v. Koch, 216 Mass. 412, 415 (1914); Kirtley v. C.G. Galbo Co., 244 Mass. 179, 182-183 (1923); Larson v. Jeffrey-Nichols Motor Co., 279 Mass. 362, 365-366 (1932); Tudor Press, Inc. v. University Distrib. Co., 292 Mass. 339, 341 (1935); Harvard Elec. & Mach. Co. v. G & K Provision Co., 333 Mass. 678, 682-683 (1956).

The case was submitted on briefs. Richard H. Wynn for the defendant. William Coniaris for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 N.E.2d 1153, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 947, 1979 Mass. App. LEXIS 1079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-oil-co-v-goodoak-massappct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack