Grandchamp v. Costello

• Decision Date: 05 March 1935
• Parties: GRANDCHAMP v. COSTELLO et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

289 Mass. 506

194 N.E. 837

GRANDCHAMP v. COSTELLO et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

March 5, 1935

Action of contract by Alfred R. Grandchamp against John J. Costello and others. From orders sustaining demurrers of individual defendants to counts one and two of plaintiff's declaration, plaintiff appeals.

Orders affirmed as to first count and reversed as to second count.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hampden County Williams, Judge.

P. Jed of Holyoke, for appellant.

H. F Collins, of Lawrence, for appellees.

RUGG Chief Justice.

Six individuals are named as defendants in this action of contract together with ‘ The American Legion, Lawrence Post, No. 15’ and ‘ The American Legion, Department of Massachusetts.’ Of these two there is no further description in the writ or declaration; there is no specification whether they are corporations or voluntary organizations; if the latter, no person or persons are named as members or representatives. Pleas in abatement have been directed to this point, which are not before us. There are two counts in the declaration. Demurrers filed by the several individual defendants were sustained. The plaintiff appealed.

The rule of pleading, both at common law and under the statute, is that a declaration must state concisely and with substantial certainty the substantive facts constituting the cause of action, with such clearness and precision that the defendant may be able to plead to it intelligently and directly. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 7, subd. 2; Davis v. H. S. & M. W. Snyder, Inc., 252 Mass. 29, 35, 147 N.E. 30; Robitaille v. Morse, 283 Mass. 27, 35, 186 N.E. 78; Gosline v. Albro-Clem Elevator Co., 174 Mass. 38, 54 N.E. 351.

The first count violates this fundamental rule. Its averments relate to a contract; but there are no direct statements as to its terms, the persons by whom it was made, whether it was oral or in writing, whether it binds the defendants jointly or severally, or jointly and severally, when it was to be or was in fact performed; but it is said to have been made ‘ directly and/or indirectly, as undisclosed principal and/or disclosed principal, and/or through their agent or agents.’ There are other statements phrased according to the ‘ and/or’ formula and indefinite and alternative in form. It fails to give any adequate information as to a cause of action. Plainly, defendants ought not to be required to answer and to try such a mass of vagueness.

The second count alleges that it is based on a quantum meruit and that the plaintiff in March and April, 1932, furnished to the defendants labor and materials consisting of forty-four thousand books of ten tickets each for a certain ball to be held at a designated hall in Boston in June, 1932; that the defendants knew or should have known that t...