Grammenos v. Zolotas
Citation | 254 N.E.2d 789,356 Mass. 594 |
Parties | Bessie GRAMMENOS et al., v. Charles M. ZOLOTAS et al. |
Decision Date | 14 January 1970 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Katherine Liacos Izzo and Paul J. Liacos, Peabody, for plaintiffs, submitted a brief.
No argument or brief for defendants.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK and REARDON, JJ.
In this action of tort the plaintiffs Chris P. Kentros and Pauline Kentros seek to recover damages for tortious interference with contractual relations against both defendants, and the plaintiff Bessie Grammenos seeks a similar recovery against the defendant Charles M. Zolotas. The demurrers of both defendants to an amended declaration were sustained. The demurrers are based on the following: (1) the failure of the three counts in the amended declaration to set out the cause of action; (2) the failure in the three counts to set out 'the words or acts or the substance of the words or acts alleged to have been made' by the defendants which induced the contract breach; (3) no count indicated a duty or violation of any duty of the defendants to the plaintiffs; (4) the plaintiffs' amended declaration was multifarious; (5) none of the counts stated concisely and with substantial certainty the facts necessary to support a cause of action; and (6) the amended declaration was essentially the same as that considered by the court in sustaining the demurrers to the original declaration. All the plaintiffs appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer of the defendant Zolotas, and the plaintiffs Kentros appeal from the order sustaining the demurrer of the defendant Hellenic Credit Union.
The declaration is summarized as follows. Bessie Kentros, the minor daughter of Chris P. Kentros and Pauline Kentros, became engaged to marry Philip Grammenos. She was under age. Philip Grammenos, not legally admitted to the United States under the immigration laws, asked consent of the parents to marry Bessie. The Kentros agreed to provide Philip with a sum of money to assist in establishing a marital domicil. After some negotiation with Philip he promised he would cause a passbook representing a deposit in excess of $5,000 in the Hellenic Credit Union to be modified so that it would be a joint account in the name of himself and his wife. He further promised to deliver the passbook to the plaintiffs Kentros so that no withdrawal could be made by him except as they might allow it, the purposes of this being the repayment of sums expended by them for the expenses of the marriage and a guaranty in the event of any immigration difficulties in which Philip might find himself. The marriage was agreed to and it took place. The plaintiffs Kentros expended sums of money on the marriage and the establishment of a marital domicil. Philip did go to the Hellenic Credit Union with his wife and her mother and caused a change in the passbook account standing in his name to be made, the new title of the account being 'Philip and/or Bessie Grammenos.' Philip thereupon delivered the passbook to the plaintiffs Kentros. In counts 1 and 2 of the declaration the plaintiffs Kentros allege that Zolotas acting individually, and the Helenic Credit Union acting through him as its president, he knowing the terms and conditions of the contract between the plaintiffs Kentros and Philip and what had transpired relative to the marriage and delivery of the passbook and of the illegal entry into the United States of Philip, 'intentionally, unlawfully and maliciously induced' Philip to break his contract with the plaintiffs Kentros and delivered to him all money deposited in the account even though he did not present the passbook as required by the contract of deposit, that such conduct of Zolotas individually and of the Hellenic Credit Union constituted a wrongful interference with the contract between Philip and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Logan Equipment Corp. v. Simon Aerials, Inc.
...acted through improper motives or means in causing breaches of the third-party contracts. Plaintiff's reliance on Grammenos v. Zolotas, 356 Mass. 594, 254 N.E.2d 789 (1970), is misplaced. That case held that the element of malicious intent could be satisfied without a showing of actual mali......
-
Steranko v. Inforex, Inc.
...without justification, it is malicious in law even though it arose from good motives and without express malice. Grammenos v. Zolotas, 356 Mass. 594, 597, 254 N.E.2d 789 (1970), and cases cited. A defendant may escape liability if the interference was privileged as part of his employment re......
-
Carter v. Empire Mut. Ins. Co.
...from their action in causing Empire wrongfully to repudiate its insurance contract with the plaintiff. See Grammenos v. Zolotas, 356 Mass. 594, 597, 254 N.E.2d 789 (1970); Pino v. Trans-Atlantic Marine, Inc., 358 Mass. 498, 504, 265 N.E.2d 583 (1970). For such interference the plaintiff has......
-
George v. Jordan Marsh Co.
...and the necessary inferences from the facts thus admitted. Monach v. Koslowski, 322 Mass. 466, 468, 78 N.E.2d 4; Grammenos v. Zolotas, 356 Mass. 594, 597, 254 N.E.2d 789. The question to be decided by us is whether the facts and inferences thus admitted 2 constitute a cause of action in fav......