Mezoff v. Carvotta

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Mezoff v. Carvotta

340 N.E.2d 527, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 768

DecidedJanuary 19, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 340 N.E.2d 527 (Mezoff v. Carvotta) 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

Mezoff v. Carvotta, 340 N.E.2d 527, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 768 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

The judge properly excluded evidence of a purported set-off which the defendants sought to introduce at the trial held in January, 1974. The assignor’s obligation for goods sold and delivered ran only to one of the defendants, New England Air Conditioning Distributors, and could not be asserted as a set-off in an action against the four defendants as comakers of the promissory note in question. G. L. c. 232, § 3, as in effect prior to St. 1975, c. 377, § 111. Evidence that the transaction by which the plaintiff acquired his interest in the note was a fraudulent conveyance was also properly excluded. As the answer in set-off was filed after the adjudication in bankruptcy of the plaintiff’s assignor, the conveyance could only be voided by the trustee in bankruptcy, not by a creditor. Thomas E. Hogan, Inc. v. Berman, 310 Mass. 259, 261 (1941). The defendants’ further contention that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury on the effect of the findings of a Municipal Court (G. L. c. 231, § 102C) was waived at oral argument.

Judgments to be entered on the verdicts.

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

The judge properly excluded evidence of a purported set-off which the defendants sought to introduce at the trial held in January, 1974. The assignor’s obligation for goods sold and delivered ran only to one of the defendants, New England Air Conditioning Distributors, and could not be asserted as a set-off in an action against the four defendants as comakers of the promissory note in question. G. L. c. 232, § 3, as in effect prior to St. 1975, c. 377, § 111. Evidence that the transaction by which the plaintiff acquired his interest in the note was a fraudulent conveyance was also properly excluded. As the answer in set-off was filed after the adjudication in bankruptcy of the plaintiff’s assignor, the conveyance could only be voided by the trustee in bankruptcy, not by a creditor. Thomas E. Hogan, Inc. v. Berman, 310 Mass. 259, 261 (1941). The defendants’ further contention that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury on the effect of the findings of a Municipal Court (G. L. c. 231, § 102C) was waived at oral argument.

Judgments to be entered on the verdicts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 N.E.2d 527, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mezoff-v-carvotta-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack