MacAllister v. Hosley

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

MacAllister v. Hosley

224 N.E.2d 416, 352 Mass. 766

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 3, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 N.E.2d 416 (MacAllister v. Hosley) 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.

Bluebook

MacAllister v. Hosley, 224 N.E.2d 416, 352 Mass. 766 (Mass. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

These are two actions of contract. The declaration in each case is the same and consists of two counts, one on an account annexed for goods sold and delivered, the other in quantum meruit. The answer of each defendant included the defence of res adjudicata. The trial judge directed verdicts for the defendant in each case on both counts. The cases are before us on the plaintiffs’ bills of exceptions. The defendants introduced in evidence the record in a case which was tried in the Fourth District Court of Plymouth County. In that case the plaintiffs in the cases at bar had brought an action against the defendants in the cases before us as copartners, for the same cause of action as in the instant cases. There was a finding for the defendants in the District Court. The plaintiffs contend that the present eases are not res adjudicata because they are “brought against the defendants as individuals and not as co-partners.” We do not agree. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the case in the District Court was not tried on its merits. The judge in that court could have made a finding against the defendants individually or jointly. Taft v. Church, 162 Mass. 527, 533. Phelps v. Shawprint, Inc. 328 Mass. 352, 359. See G. L. c. 231, § 4A; G. L. c. 235, § 6.

Exceptions overruled.

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

These are two actions of contract. The declaration in each case is the same and consists of two counts, one on an account annexed for goods sold and delivered, the other in quantum meruit. The answer of each defendant included the defence of res adjudicata. The trial judge directed verdicts for the defendant in each case on both counts. The cases are before us on the plaintiffs’ bills of exceptions. The defendants introduced in evidence the record in a case which was tried in the Fourth District Court of Plymouth County. In that case the plaintiffs in the cases at bar had brought an action against the defendants in the cases before us as copartners, for the same cause of action as in the instant cases. There was a finding for the defendants in the District Court. The plaintiffs contend that the present eases are not res adjudicata because they are “brought against the defendants as individuals and not as co-partners.” We do not agree. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the case in the District Court was not tried on its merits. The judge in that court could have made a finding against the defendants individually or jointly. Taft v. Church, 162 Mass. 527, 533. Phelps v. Shawprint, Inc. 328 Mass. 352, 359. See G. L. c. 231, § 4A; G. L. c. 235, § 6.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 N.E.2d 416, 352 Mass. 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macallister-v-hosley-mass-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack