Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Strong

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Strong

34 Mass. App. Dec. 11

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedJanuary 12, 1966

DocketNo. 75579

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 Mass. App. Dec. 11 (Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Strong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Strong, 34 Mass. App. Dec. 11 (Mass. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Adlow, C.J.

On the petition to establish a report filed by the defendant, it appears that at a hearing held by the judge who heard the original action, counsel for both parties appeared and in open court agreed on the form in which the report should be prepared. Counsel for the defendant was directed to prepare the report in the agreed form. This he failed to do, and the court was within its [12]*12rights in refusing to allow the report because of a material variance from the agreed version.

Harry J. Williams and George C. Strong, both of Boston for the Petitioner. Selwyn P. Shine of Boston for the Respondent.

Aside and apart from these considerations, no honestly arguable legal issue is presented by the report which represents the defendant’s version of the facts in issue. At the time the bill in litigation was incurred by the defendant the plaintiff corporation was doing business under the trade name of Esso Standard Oil Company, a fact which was on record in the office of the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth since February 24, i960. It being admitted that the goods were received by the defendant and that the bills are unpaid, the defense raised is frivolous and obviously calculated to defeat an honest claim. Petition denied.

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

Adlow, C.J.

On the petition to establish a report filed by the defendant, it appears that at a hearing held by the judge who heard the original action, counsel for both parties appeared and in open court agreed on the form in which the report should be prepared. Counsel for the defendant was directed to prepare the report in the agreed form. This he failed to do, and the court was within its [12]*12rights in refusing to allow the report because of a material variance from the agreed version.

Harry J. Williams and George C. Strong, both of Boston for the Petitioner. Selwyn P. Shine of Boston for the Respondent.

Aside and apart from these considerations, no honestly arguable legal issue is presented by the report which represents the defendant’s version of the facts in issue. At the time the bill in litigation was incurred by the defendant the plaintiff corporation was doing business under the trade name of Esso Standard Oil Company, a fact which was on record in the office of the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth since February 24, i960. It being admitted that the goods were received by the defendant and that the bills are unpaid, the defense raised is frivolous and obviously calculated to defeat an honest claim. Petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Mass. App. Dec. 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humble-oil-refining-co-v-strong-massdistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack