Gibbs Oil Co. v. Goodoak
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
We pass the question whether par. 20 of the defendant’s answer was sufficient to raise the affirmative defence of novation (see Mass. R.Civ.P. 8[c], 365 Mass. 750 [1974]) because the undisputed facts set out in pars. 7,11 and 15 through 17 of the defendant’s answers to interrogatories and in his affidavit in opposition to the motion for sum*948mary judgment are insufficient as matter of law to warrant a finding that the plaintiff discharged the defendant from any existing liability to it. See Traveler Shoe Co. v. Koch, 216 Mass. 412, 415 (1914); Kirtley v. C.G. Galbo Co., 244 Mass. 179, 182-183…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Larson v. Jeffrey-Nichols Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
- Tudor Press, Inc. v. University Distributing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Kirtley v. C. G. Galbo Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Traveler Shoe Co. v. KochMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Harvard Electric & Machine Co. v. G & K Provision Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
3Cited by1 opinion
- L. Rudolph Electrical Co. v. Gibbs Oil Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1983