You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Crandall Dry Dock Engineers, Inc. v. Gloucester Marine Railways Corp.

Citations: 334 Mass. 704; 1956 Mass. LEXIS 820; 135 N.E.2d 12

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; May 31, 1956; Massachusetts; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Exceptions were overruled in a contract action where the plaintiff sought to recover a balance for materials and services provided to the defendant. The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of no defense, while the defendant countered with an affidavit deemed insufficient by the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the denial of its motion for judgment, claiming it presented a decisive legal issue based on the record. However, the court found no error in the denial, categorizing it as an interlocutory matter, referencing previous case law (Lawrence v. Old Silver Beach, Inc., Scola v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, Thayer Co. v. Binnall). The judge was not mandated to issue a judgment order under G. L. Ter. Ed. c. 231. 59B, and appropriately moved the case to the trial short list. Representation included Lispenard B. Phister for the plaintiff and Solomon Sandler for the defendant.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affidavit of No Defense

Application: The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of no defense, arguing that the defendant's counter-affidavit was insufficient.

Reasoning: The plaintiff submitted an affidavit of no defense, while the defendant countered with an affidavit deemed insufficient by the plaintiff.

Interlocutory Orders

Application: The denial of the plaintiff's motion for judgment was considered an interlocutory matter by the court.

Reasoning: However, the court found no error in the denial, categorizing it as an interlocutory matter, referencing previous case law (Lawrence v. Old Silver Beach, Inc., Scola v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, Thayer Co. v. Binnall).

Judgment Orders under G. L. Ter. Ed. c. 231. 59B

Application: The judge was not obligated to issue a judgment order at this stage of the proceedings.

Reasoning: The judge was not mandated to issue a judgment order under G. L. Ter. Ed. c. 231. 59B, and appropriately moved the case to the trial short list.