Leventhal v. Dockser
| Decision Date | 10 May 1972 |
| Parties | William J. LEVENTHAL v. William B. DOCKSER et al. 1 (and two companion cases). 2 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William J. Leventhal, pro se.
Will J. Bangs, Boston, for American Discount Corp. and others.
George G. Pierce, Boston, for Benjamin Gargill.
Harold Lavien, Boston, for New England Merchants National Bank.
Jacob J. Locke, Boston, for William B. Dockser and others.
Before TAURO, C.J., and REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiff appeals from orders sustaining 'with leave to amend denied' demurrers to the declarations in three actions, two in 'tort' and one in 'contract,' and from the additional sustaining of an answer in abatement filed in the contract action. The two tort actions represent the plaintiff's attempt to remedy defects in his pleadings in an earlier case in which this court upheld the sustaining of demurrers. See LEVENTHAL V. DOCKSER, MASS., 261 N.E.2D 64.A Each count of his declarations in the new tort actions consumes approximately six pages of the printed record, as contrasted with approximately one page in the earlier case, and each count now contains a plethora of extraneous, discursive and immaterial allegations. Notwithstanding the prolixity of the declarations in these two new tort actions the plaintiff has not remedied the fatal defects of his earlier declarations. The allegations in all counts of both actions remain '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.' Leventhal v. Dockser, supra. G.L. c. 231, § 7, Second. The counts designated by the plaintiff as being for 'malicious abuse of criminal process' do not allege facts sufficient to constitute that cause of action. Leventhal v. Dockser, supra. The counts described as being for 'extortion' and for 'coercion and duress' do not state facts supporting any recognized civil cause of action in this Commonwealth. In his 'contract' action the plaintiff attempts to combine a claim for damages with a request for a declaration from the court that certain documents and transfers of securities, allegedly executed by the plaintiff and his mother in favor of the defendants, are 'void or voidable.' All four counts in this action are based upon an alleged agreement that if the plaintiff executed and transferred such instruments he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Machinery Hauling, Inc. v. Steel of West Virginia
...any common law action for damages based upon allegedly extortionate conduct. In fact, it is clear that none exists. Leventhal v. Dockser, 361 Mass. 894, 282 N.E.2d 680 (1972); Blaz v. Molin Concrete Products Co., 309 Minn. 382, 244 N.W.2d 277 (1976); see Wykle v. Valley Fidelity Bank & Trus......
-
Com. 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., Mass. (1972) (Mass.Adv.Sh. (1972) 1329), 285 N.E.2d 415.a. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1973)......
-
Eley v. Evans
...Ct. Apr. 8, 1992) (citing Bass v. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, 516 So.2d 1011, 1011-12 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1987); Leventhal v. Dockser, 361 Mass. 894, 894, 282 N.E.2d 680, 681 (1972)). 4. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis covers the filing and service fees only, as the plaintif......
-
Fischer v. Estate of Flax
...Myers v. Cohen, 5 Haw.App. 232, 687 P.2d 6, rev'd on other grounds, 67 Haw. 389, 688 P.2d 1145 (1984); Leventhal v. Dockser, 361 Mass. 894, 282 N.E.2d 680 (1972). 4. To hold otherwise would be akin to saying that "a defendant could conspire with his right arm, which held, aimed, and fired t......