Leventhal v. Dockser
| Decision Date | 03 July 1970 |
| Citation | 261 N.E.2d 64,358 Mass. 799 |
| Parties | William J. LEVENTHAL v. William B. DOCKER et al. 1 (and a companion case 2 ). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William J. Leventhal, pro se.
Philander S. Ratzkoff, Boston, for defendant Dockser and others.
Will J. Bangs, Boston, for American Discount Corp. and others.
George G. Pierce, Boston, for defendant Benjamin Cargill.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, REARDON and QUIRICO, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiff appeals from orders sustaining 'with leave to amend denied' demurrers to the declarations in both actions. Both declarations are in three counts. The demurrers were properly sustained. The counts for abuse of criminal process fail to allege that the defendants either directed the criminal process or had control or influence over those in charge of the prosecution. See Wood v. Graves, 144 Mass. 365, 367, 368--369, 11 N.E. 567; McLean v. Naumkeag Trust Co., 268 Mass. 437, 439, 167 N.E. 748. The counts, characterized by the plaintiff in his briefs as being for 'extortion' and 'coercion and duress,' do not state facts supporting a cause of action. The allegations in all the counts 'are but generalizations and conclusions which do not sufficiently inform the defendants of the facts so that they might know what they would be called upon to meet.' Lloyd v. Howes, 350 Mass. 19, 21, 212 N.E.2d 857, 858, and cases cited. The refusal to grant leave to amend was within the discretion of the judge. Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co., 303 Mass. 53, 56, 20 N.E.2d 465; Foster v. Shubert Holding Co., 316 Mass. 470, 477, 55 N.E.2d 772; Desmond v. Boston Elev. Ry., 319 Mass. 13, 16, 64 N.E.2d 357; Lloyd v. Howes, supra, 350 Mass. at 21, 212 N.E.2d 857, and cases cited. No abuse of discretion has been shown. See Bartley v. Phillips, 317 Mass. 35, 41--44, 57 N.E.2d 26. The orders sustaining the demurrers in both cases are affirmed.
So ordered.
1 The partners in the law firm of Choate, Hall & Stewart of Boston.
2 William J. Leventhal vs. American Discount Corporation and others.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Leventhal
... ... 1 For civil litigation arising out of the matters at issue in the defendant's criminal prosecution, see, e.g., American Discount Corp. v. Leventhal, 357 Mass. 775, 258 N.E.2d 742 (1970); American Discount Corp. v. Leventhal, 357 Mass. 776, 258 N.E.2d 741 (1970); Leventhal v. Dockser, 358 Mass. 799, 261 N.E.2d 64 (1970); Leventhal v. Dockser, Mass. (1972) (Mass.Adv.Sh. (1972) 1015) 282 N.E.2d 680; Leventhal v. American Discount Corp., ... ...
-
Yacubian v. United States
... ... 36. See Limone, 579 F.3d at 91; Leventhal ... 36. See Limone, 579 F.3d at 91; Leventhal v. Dockser ... ...
-
Jones v. Brockton Public Markets, Inc.
... ... Bloom, 321 Mass. 9, 71 N.E.2d 218 (1947); and, the process related to the bringing of criminal charges, e.g., Leventhal v. Dockser, 358 Mass. 799, 261 N.E.2d 64 (1970); MacLean v. Naumkeag Trust Co., 268 Mass. 437, 167 N.E. 748 (1929); White v. Apsley Rubber Co., 181 ... ...
-
Frank J. Linhares Co., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co.
... ... v. Henderson, 341 Mass. 730, 170 N.E.2d 318 (1960); Leventhal v. Dockser, 358 Mass. 799, 261 N.E.2d 64 (1970); THOMSON V. JET SPRAY CORP., 2 MASS.APP. --- , 307 N.E.2D 849 (1974)J), another consideration, not ... ...