Mutual Coat Corp. v. Dorsyl Realty, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mutual Coat Corp. v. Dorsyl Realty, Inc.

195 N.E.2d 512, 346 Mass. 777, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 873

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 2, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 195 N.E.2d 512 (Mutual Coat Corp. v. Dorsyl Realty, Inc.) 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

Mutual Coat Corp. v. Dorsyl Realty, Inc., 195 N.E.2d 512, 346 Mass. 777, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 873 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order sustaining demurrer affirmed. Judgment for the defendant. In this action by a tenant against its landlord for loss of furs by theft, the declaration, on demurrer, fails as to the first count, in tort, because the mere relationship of landlord and tenant imposes no duty on the landlord to secure entrance doors. Teall v. Harlow, 275 Mass. 448, 452. The second count, in contract, fails because there is no allegation of an express contract, written or oral, whereby the landlord assumed the duty to secure entrance doors. Pollock v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co. 289 Mass. 255, 258. G. L. [778]*778c. 231, § 7, Second. G. L. c. 231, § 7, Eleventh. In oral argument, the plaintiff conceded that the third count, in tort, was demurrable. The remaining count, in contract, fails because there is no allegation, essential to the existence of a bailment, that possession of the furs was delivered to, and accepted by, the landlord. D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. North Terminal Garage Co. 291 Mass. 251, 256-258. Williston, Contracts (2d ed.) § 1032.

Marvin K. Rasnick for the plaintiff. Lawrence A. Sullivan (Henry P. Monaghan with him) for the defendant.

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

Order sustaining demurrer affirmed. Judgment for the defendant. In this action by a tenant against its landlord for loss of furs by theft, the declaration, on demurrer, fails as to the first count, in tort, because the mere relationship of landlord and tenant imposes no duty on the landlord to secure entrance doors. Teall v. Harlow, 275 Mass. 448, 452. The second count, in contract, fails because there is no allegation of an express contract, written or oral, whereby the landlord assumed the duty to secure entrance doors. Pollock v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co. 289 Mass. 255, 258. G. L. [778]*778c. 231, § 7, Second. G. L. c. 231, § 7, Eleventh. In oral argument, the plaintiff conceded that the third count, in tort, was demurrable. The remaining count, in contract, fails because there is no allegation, essential to the existence of a bailment, that possession of the furs was delivered to, and accepted by, the landlord. D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. North Terminal Garage Co. 291 Mass. 251, 256-258. Williston, Contracts (2d ed.) § 1032.

Marvin K. Rasnick for the plaintiff. Lawrence A. Sullivan (Henry P. Monaghan with him) for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 N.E.2d 512, 346 Mass. 777, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-coat-corp-v-dorsyl-realty-inc-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack