TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Spring Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Malden Supply Co.

Spring Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Malden Supply Company & others

Spring Valley Country Club, Inc. v. Malden Supply Co., 208 N.E.2d 230 (Mass. 1965)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 4, 1965
Citations
208 N.E.2d 230349 Mass. 764

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order affirmed. We are here concerned only with counts 11 and 12 of the plaintiff’s declaration against the United States Rubber Company (defendant). Count 11 sounds in tort for negligence and count 12 sounds in contract for breach of warranty. The plaintiff appealed from an order of the Superior Court sustaining a demurrer to each of these counts. As to count 11, one of the grounds stated by the defendant is that it “fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim against the [d]efendant.” The same ground is assigned as to count 12. Count 11 seems to claim negligence by the defendant in its manufacture of certain material subsequently made into pipes by another named defendant; but it does not “state concisely and with substantial certainty the substantive facts necessary to constitute the cause of action.” G. L. c. 231, § 7, Second. Count 12 suffers from the same infirmity, and also shows affirmatively that there was no privity between the parties. See G. L. c. 106, § 2-313. Referring to this count, the plaintiff in its brief relies on Roberts v. Anheuser Busch Brewing Assn. 211 Mass. 449 . That case is obviously inapposite. We are of opinion that neither count is sufficient in law “to enable the plaintiff to maintain . . . [its] action,” G. L. e. 231, § 18, and that neither count complies with G. L. e. 231, § 7, Second.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1968: 11970: 11981: 119682026peak 1968 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burke v. Hamilton Beach Division, Scovill Manufacturing Co.424 A.2d 145 (Me. 1981)
  2. Necktas v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. PONTIAC DIVISION259 N.E.2d 234 (Mass. 1970)
  3. Patenaude v. Anderson40 Mass. App. Dec. 198 (1968)

Most recent

  1. Burke v. Hamilton Beach Division, Scovill Manufacturing Co.424 A.2d 145 (Me. 1981)
  2. Necktas v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. PONTIAC DIVISION259 N.E.2d 234 (Mass. 1970)
  3. Patenaude v. Anderson40 Mass. App. Dec. 198 (1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Roberts v. Anheuser Busch Brewing Ass'n, 98 N.E. 95 (Mass. 1912) 38

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list