Henry L. Sawyer Co. v. Boyajian

Decision Date30 October 1941
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court


Action of contract by Henry L. Sawyer Company against S. K. Boyajian. From an order of the Appellate Division dismissing a report of the denial by the trial judge of a motion.

Order dismissing report affirmed.

S. K. Boyajian, defendant pro se.

Charles Prombain, of Wellesley, and Abraham Brooks and H. P. L. Partridge, both of Boston, for plaintiff.


This action of contract, brought in a district court, resulted in a finding for the plaintiff in 1935. Since then the case has been before this court three times upon appeals by the defendant. 296 Mass. 215, 5 N.E.2d 348; 298 Mass. 415, 10 N.E.2d 471; 303 Mass. 311, 21 N.E.2d 536. The defendanthas now appealed from an order of the Appellate Division dismissing a report of the denial by the trial judge of a motion, and of rulings requested in connection therewith, ‘to stay, abate, or reverse proceedings in the above-entitled action, and/or for such other or further order as in law may thereto appertain,’ in which the ground assigned is that the action ‘was brought and prosecuted (as appears on the record, see Report on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Docket No. 33; 1936 A.S. 2327 [296 Mass. 215, 5 N.E.2d 348]; etc.) by a corporation operating as a collection agency’ which has been forbidden ‘from bringing or prosecuting such actions.’ The motion was verified by affidavit of the defendant. No other evidence is reported and there are no express findings of fact. Copies of the docket entries and of some other papers on file in the District Court were transmitted to this court. See G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 135. Denial of the motion to dismiss the action on the ground that it was brought by such a corporation was sustained in 296 Mass. 215, 5 N.E.2d 348 (referred to in the motion as 1936 A.S. 2327) for the reason that the proceedings were not void on this ground. Page 218 of 296 Mass.,page 350 of 5 N.E.2d. It was said in that case however, that the ‘case at bar is distinguishable from those wherein objection is made to further proceedings conducted by an unauthorized attorney.’ See, also, Gill v. Richmond Co-operative Association, Inc., 309 Mass. 73, 75, 76, 34 N.E.2d 509. So far as the present motion rests upon the same ground as the motion to dismiss, it stands no better than that motion. And there is nothing in this report, including the report on the motion to dismiss...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT