M. F. Roach Co. v. Town of Provincetown
| Decision Date | 23 April 1969 |
| Citation | 355 Mass. 731,247 N.E.2d 377 |
| Parties | M. F. ROACH COMPANY v. TOWN OF PROVINCETOWN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stephen A. Hopkins, Boston, for defendant Commonwealth Corp.
John D. Dwyer, Boston (Joseph H. Elcock, Jr., Boston, with him), for plaintiff.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, KIRK and REARDON, JJ.
In M. F. Roach Co. v. Provincetown, 353 Mass. 745, 228 N.E.2d 834, the final decree in this suit was reversed and the suit was remanded to the Superior Court for reconsideration of findings and conclusions by the trial judge based on that rescript opinion, including reconsideration of possible recovery against the Commonwealth Corporation (corporation). After further hearing and entry of a new final decree, the town settled with the plaintiff and the town's appeal from the decree was dismissed. On the corporation's appeal we deal only with the part of the decree aimed at it. The evidence is reported and the judge filed voluntary findings. He has now found that the corporation through its agent 'was totally lacking in good faith and integrity in its relationship with the Town of Provincetown and with the * * * (plaintiff),' and that its conduct 'was the primary reason for the delay in the completion of the contract, thus depriving the * * * (plaintiff) of the opportunity of earning the profit on the unfinished items,' and that it 'wrongfully interfered with the performance by the * * * (plaintiff) of its contract with the Town.' The judge assessed damages against the corporation for the plaintiff's loss of profits on uncompleted contract items. We accord the judge's findings the customary review. Sulmonetti v. Hayes, 347 Mass. 390, 391--392, 198 N.E.2d 297. He was not plainly wrong. The plaintiff adduced evidence sufficient to show an intentional interference with its contractual rights with the town which, in the absence of legal justification, established malicious interference in law and entitled it to recover. Keegan v. O'Donnell, 310 Mass. 346, 350, 37 N.E.2d 995, and cases cited. Caverno v. Fellows, 300 Mass. 331, 333, 15 N.E.2d 483.
The judge, having found tortious interference by the corporation with the plaintiff's contract with the town, awarded the sum of $7,500 to the plaintiff to cover its outlay for fees for counsel necessitated by its prosecution of its claim against the town. While, as we indicated in Chartrand v. Riley, 354 Mass. 242, 243--245, 237 N.E.2d 10, counsel fees are not ordinarily collectible as an element of damage, the rule has its exception in the event of tortious conduct similar to that in this case requiring the victim of the tort to sue or defend against a third party in order to protect his rights.
This case deviates from the usual in that the plaintiff, instead of first suing the third party and then recovering counsel fees incurred in that action from the tort-feasor in a second action, has joined both claims in one lawsuit. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schiller v. Strangis
...during the state criminal proceedings. See generally Restatement (Second) of Torts § 914 (1979). Cf. M. F. Roach Co. v. Town of Provincetown, 355 Mass. 731, 247 N.E.2d 377 (1969) (malicious interference with contractual rights); Spillane v. Corey, 323 Mass. 673, 84 N.E.2d 5 (1949) (action f......
-
Steranko v. Inforex, Inc.
...322 Mass. 356, 360, 77 N.E.2d 318 (1948). Backman v. Guiliano, 331 Mass. 231, 232, 118 N.E.2d 78 (1954). M. F. Roach Co. v. Provincetown, 355 Mass. 731, 732, 247 N.E.2d 377 (1969). If such interference is found to be intentional and without justification, it is malicious in law even though ......
-
Psy–ed Corp.. & Another 1 v. Stanley Klein & Another 2
...party with whom he had a contract, or in defending against an action brought by that third party. See M.F. Roach Co. v. Provincetown, 355 Mass. 731, 732–733, 247 N.E.2d 377 (1969). See Mailhiot v. Liberty Bank & Trust Co., 24 Mass.App.Ct. 525, 531–532, 510 N.E.2d 773 (1987) ( Roach exceptio......
-
Carter v. Empire Mut. Ins. Co.
...properly joined with her claim on the policy against Empire. Mass.R.Civ.P. 20(a), 365 Mass. 766 (1974). M.F. Roach Co. v. Provincetown, 355 Mass. 731, 732-733, 247 N.E.2d 377 (1969). See Gentile Bros. Corp. v. Rowena Homes, Inc., 352 Mass. 584, 585, 591-592, 227 N.E.2d 338 (1967). All three......