Publix Food Market, Inc. v. Bitar

D. Massachusetts

Publix Food Market, Inc. v. Bitar

156 F. Supp. 274, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2769

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts

DecidedNovember 7, 1957

DocketCiv. A. No. 57-840

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 F. Supp. 274 (Publix Food Market, Inc. v. Bitar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Publix Food Market, Inc. v. Bitar, 156 F. Supp. 274, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2769 (D. Mass. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

ALDRICH, District Judge.

This is a diversity action against two partners, residents of California. The plaintiffs are Massachusetts corporations. The amended complaint alleges that the parties entered into a contract— it is not alleged where — and that defendants broke it. The defendants move to quash service. Service was made both upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in reliance upon Massachusetts G.L. (Ter.Ed.1932) Ch. 227, § 5, and, in Springfield, Massachusetts on one Riggs. Since there is another clear ground, I 'disregard the § 5 service because of possible uncertainty whether the defendants were doing business in the Commonwealth at the time of the service, or that the action arose out of Massachusetts business. The marshal’s return states that Riggs was a “general agent for the * * * defendants.” In opposition to the motion to quash, plaintiffs filed affidavits. Defendants filed none, and offered no testimony, although the hearing was continued, in view of certain statements of counsel, to permit them to do so.

On the record, the marshal’s return •must be accepted.

There appears to be no case in this circuit resolving the question as to whether state, Woods v. Zellers, D.C.E.D.Pa., 9 F.R.D. 6, or federal, Hicklin v. Edwards, 8 Cir., 226 F.2d 410, law determines the effect to be given to the recitation in the officer’s return. If state, I could not follow the broad rule that the return is “conclusive as to all matters which are properly the subject of the return.” Union Savings Bank v. Cameron, 319 Mass. 235, 236, 65 N.E.2d 313, 314. Indeed, it is not entirely clear what that statement means. Cf. Bay State Wholesale Drug Co. v. Whitman, 280 Mass. 188, 182 N.E. 361; United Drug Co. v. Cordley & Hayes, 239 Mass. 334, 338, 132 N.E. 56. To apply so severe a doctrine against non-residents would seem lacking in due process. Vaughn v. Love, 324 Pa. 276, 188 A. 299, 107 A.L.R. 1336. I do not believe Massachusetts would do so. It is another matter to say that the officer’s return is prima facie correct unless rebutted. Hicklin v. Edwards, supra. The defendants having failed to rebut, the motion to quash is denied. The defendants are given 30 days in which to answer.

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

ALDRICH, District Judge.

This is a diversity action against two partners, residents of California. The plaintiffs are Massachusetts corporations. The amended complaint alleges that the parties entered into a contract— it is not alleged where — and that defendants broke it. The defendants move to quash service. Service was made both upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in reliance upon Massachusetts G.L. (Ter.Ed.1932) Ch. 227, § 5, and, in Springfield, Massachusetts on one Riggs. Since there is another clear ground, I 'disregard the § 5 service because of possible uncertainty whether the defendants were doing business in the Commonwealth at the time of the service, or that the action arose out of Massachusetts business. The marshal’s return states that Riggs was a “general agent for the * * * defendants.” In opposition to the motion to quash, plaintiffs filed affidavits. Defendants filed none, and offered no testimony, although the hearing was continued, in view of certain statements of counsel, to permit them to do so.

On the record, the marshal’s return •must be accepted.

There appears to be no case in this circuit resolving the question as to whether state, Woods v. Zellers, D.C.E.D.Pa., 9 F.R.D. 6, or federal, Hicklin v. Edwards, 8 Cir., 226 F.2d 410, law determines the effect to be given to the recitation in the officer’s return. If state, I could not follow the broad rule that the return is “conclusive as to all matters which are properly the subject of the return.” Union Savings Bank v. Cameron, 319 Mass. 235, 236, 65 N.E.2d 313, 314. Indeed, it is not entirely clear what that statement means. Cf. Bay State Wholesale Drug Co. v. Whitman, 280 Mass. 188, 182 N.E. 361; United Drug Co. v. Cordley & Hayes, 239 Mass. 334, 338, 132 N.E. 56. To apply so severe a doctrine against non-residents would seem lacking in due process. Vaughn v. Love, 324 Pa. 276, 188 A. 299, 107 A.L.R. 1336. I do not believe Massachusetts would do so. It is another matter to say that the officer’s return is prima facie correct unless rebutted. Hicklin v. Edwards, supra. The defendants having failed to rebut, the motion to quash is denied. The defendants are given 30 days in which to answer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 F. Supp. 274, 1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/publix-food-market-inc-v-bitar-mad-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack