Nat-Jo, Inc. v. Whitehead & Kales Co.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Nat-Jo, Inc. v. Whitehead & Kales Co.

338 N.E.2d 856, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 852

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedDecember 19, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 338 N.E.2d 856 (Nat-Jo, Inc. v. Whitehead & Kales Co.) 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

Nat-Jo, Inc. v. Whitehead & Kales Co., 338 N.E.2d 856, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 852 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

1. As both appellants agree, the judge erred in refusing to grant declaratory relief. Improved Mach. Inc. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. 349 Mass. 461, 463 (1965). 2. The evidence was insufficient to warrant a finding that Bentley had either actual or apparent authority to bind Whitehead & Kales Company (Whitehead) to the indemnity provision found in the form of rental agreement dated June 25, 1969 (contrast Johnson v. New York, N. H. & H. R.R. 217 Mass. 203, 207-208 [1914]), and, for all that appears, Whitehead did not even learn of the [797]*797existence of the form until after the occurrence of the injuries and death in question. The judgment of dismissal is reversed, and a new judgment is to be entered which declares that Whitehead is not bound to indemnify the plaintiff against either the LeBlanc claim or the Dris-coll claim by reason of anything found in the form.

Philip J. MacCarthy for the plaintiff. Philip L. Berkeley for the defendant.

So ordered.

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

1. As both appellants agree, the judge erred in refusing to grant declaratory relief. Improved Mach. Inc. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. 349 Mass. 461, 463 (1965). 2. The evidence was insufficient to warrant a finding that Bentley had either actual or apparent authority to bind Whitehead & Kales Company (Whitehead) to the indemnity provision found in the form of rental agreement dated June 25, 1969 (contrast Johnson v. New York, N. H. & H. R.R. 217 Mass. 203, 207-208 [1914]), and, for all that appears, Whitehead did not even learn of the [797]*797existence of the form until after the occurrence of the injuries and death in question. The judgment of dismissal is reversed, and a new judgment is to be entered which declares that Whitehead is not bound to indemnify the plaintiff against either the LeBlanc claim or the Dris-coll claim by reason of anything found in the form.

Philip J. MacCarthy for the plaintiff. Philip L. Berkeley for the defendant.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 N.E.2d 856, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nat-jo-inc-v-whitehead-kales-co-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack