TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Striar v. Cooper

Max Striar & others v. Louis Cooper & another

Striar v. Cooper, 372 N.E.2d 288 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Appeals Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 2, 1978
Citations
372 N.E.2d 2886 Mass. App. Ct. 8411978 Mass. App. LEXIS 671

Opinion of the Court

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

The lower court allowed motions by both defendants to dismiss this action to reach an indebtedness of the defendant General Industries, Inc. (General), to the defendant Cooper on a promissory note for $300,-000 and to apply it to a larger alleged obligation of Cooper to the plaintiffs. The dismissal was apparently for the reason that there was pending in the same court and in the same county an earlier action against General brought by the same plaintiffs as assignees of the same note. The action to reach and apply was commenced after General, in the first action, by its answer and affidavit challenged the validity of the assignment. The plaintiffs have sought without success to be permitted to amend their complaint in the first action, which is still pending, to include both claims for recovery against General’s obligation on the note. The effect of the dismissal of this action, coupled with the refusal to allow amendment in the first action, is to leave the plaintiffs in the position of being unable to recover on the note unless they can prove the validity of the assignment. We hold that the plaintiffs’ claim to reach General’s obligation to Cooper on the note and to apply it to Cooper’s alleged indebtedness to the plaintiffs is a claim separate and distinct from their claim against General as assignees of the note. Accordingly, we hold that dismissal was not warranted un *842 der Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (9), 365 Mass. 755 (1974). The judgment is reversed. The plaintiffs are to be permitted, if they so move, to amend their complaint, either in this action or in the first action (Superior Court, Worcester County, Civil Action No. 4398), to embrace both claims and to dismiss the action thereby superseded.

Robert M. Gault for the plaintiffs. Charles J. O’Connor, for the defendants, submitted a brief.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1999: 12004: 12012: 119992026peak 1999 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Zora Enterprises, Inc. v. Burnett810 N.E.2d 835 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004)
  2. Lyons v. Duncan968 N.E.2d 412 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
  3. Towne v. North End Isuzu, Inc.10 Mass. L. Rptr. 340 (1999)

Most recent

  1. Lyons v. Duncan968 N.E.2d 412 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
  2. Zora Enterprises, Inc. v. Burnett810 N.E.2d 835 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004)
  3. Towne v. North End Isuzu, Inc.10 Mass. L. Rptr. 340 (1999)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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