Armstrong Knitting Mills v. Oakes

• Decision Date: 05 June 1924
• Citation: 144 N.E. 81,249 Mass. 397
• Parties: ARMSTRONG KNITTING MILLS v. OAKES et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

249 Mass. 397

144 N.E. 81

ARMSTRONG KNITTING MILLS

v.OAKES et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

June 5, 1924.

Report from Superior Court, Essex County; John D. McLaughlin, Judge.

Action of contract by the Armstrong Knitting Mills against Owen F. Oakes and Margaret L. Oakes. The last-named defendant dying, a motion is made to dismiss. On report. Motion denied, on condition.

H. D. Linscott and H. R. Mayo, both of Lynn, for plaintiff.

S. C. Rand, of Boston, and S. B. Ecker, of New York City, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

By an instrument under seal, dated January 2, 1912, Owen F. Oakes and Margaret L. Oakes sold to the plaintiff certain machinery and personal property connected with the business carried on by the sellers, under the name of Oakes Knitting Mills Company. The plaintiff's action is in contract against Owen F. and Margaret L. Oakes, the declaration alleging that the defendants have interfered with the good will of the business sold the plaintiff; that they have sought directly and indirectly to injure the business of the plaintiff, and have directly and indirectly entered the business of manufacturing and selling sweaters and other woolen goods, in competition with the plaintiff, to its damage. The case was tried before an auditor, who filed a report.

While the action was pending, Margaret L. Oakes died on December 12, 1921. Owen F. Oakes was appointed her executor. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a motion suggesting the death of Margaret L. Oakes and the appointment of her executor, and asking that a citation issue to the executor to appear and take upon himself the defense of the action. The executor appeared specially and moved that the process be dismissed, that he be excused from further answering, and that the action be dismissed as to Margaret L. Oakes or her estate. In the superior court this motion of the executor was allowed and the case reported to this court.

[1][2] The contract of Owen F. Oakes and Margaret L. Oakes was a joint contract. Bartlett v. Robbins, 5 Metc. 184;New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Hayden, 119 Mass. 361;Meyer v. Estes, 164 Mass. 457, 41 N. E. 683,32 L. R. A. 283;Wood v. Farmer, 200 Mass. 209, 213, 86 N. E. 297. It contains no language indicating the severance of the parties' liability. The declaration is based on the written contract, alleging that certain property and the good will of the business carried on by the defendants were sold to the plaintiff by a written agreement, and that the defendants thereby impliedly covenanted with the plaintiff that they would not interfere with the enjoyment of what they sold to the plaintiff under said written instrument. There is nothing in Old Corner Bookstore v. Upham, 194 Mass. 101, 80 N. E. 228,120 Am. St. Rep. 532, and the other cases cited by the plaintiff, showing that the contract in question was several, or joint and several. In the case at bar the contract was joint; the action could not proceed against the executor as well as against the surviving defendant. New Haven & Northampton Co. v. Hayden, supra; Lee v. Blodget, 214 Mass. 374, 102 N. E. 67. See Poland v. Otto...