Legal Opinion

Gibbs Oil Co. v. Goodoak

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided December 26, 1979PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Larson v. Jeffrey-Nichols Motor Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  2. Tudor Press, Inc. v. University Distributing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  3. Kirtley v. C. G. Galbo Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  4. Traveler Shoe Co. v. KochMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  5. Harvard Electric & Machine Co. v. G & K Provision Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. L. Rudolph Electrical Co. v. Gibbs Oil Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API