Mabardy v. Railway Express Agency
| Decision Date | 17 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 7237.,7237. |
| Citation | 26 F. Supp. 25 |
| Parties | MABARDY v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Francis Juggins, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Austin M. Pinkham, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the defendant moves for summary judgment. The arguments upon the motion, which is supported by an affidavit, were heard today.
At the outset it should be stated that no attempt is here made to determine what the alleged defense should be called. It is unnecessary to decide whether to call it res judicata or estoppel by judgment. See Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U.S. 351, 24 L.Ed. 195; Myers v. International Trust Company, 263 U.S. 64, 44 S.Ct. 86, 68 L.Ed. 165; Baltimore Steamship Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 47 S.Ct. 600, 71 L.Ed. 1069.
The matter argued by the parties is the effect upon the instant case of the former judgment to which reference is about to be made, and it is the effect of that judgment with which this decision deals.
The facts on which the controversy depends follow:
On January 12, 1937, a collision occurred between two motor vehicles, one driven by the plaintiff, Mitchell A. Mabardy, and the other by Michael G. Cashman, an employee of the defendant. Cashman sued Mabardy in the state court for personal injuries. In that action the issues were Cashman's due care, Mabardy's negligence, and Cashman's damages. Cashman obtained judgment and collected it. Later, Mabardy sued Cashman for his injuries in the state court, and the latter's plea of res judicata was there sustained. Mabardy also sued Railway Express Agency, Inc., in the state court and the defendant removed the case to this court. This is the case in which the motion for summary judgment was filed. The defendant then answered, setting up certain facts and declaring the matter "res judicata", and this part of the answer is involved in the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
As between Mabardy and Cashman, the former's negligence and the latter's due care were determined finally by the judgment which Cashman obtained against Mabardy. Browne v. Moran, Mass., 14 N.E.2d 119; Biggio v. Magee, 272 Mass. 185, 172 N.E. 336. Though the facts there appearing are different than those here appearing, the decision in Giedrewicz v. Donovan, 277 Mass. 563, 179 N.E. 246, indicates that a master may avail himself of a judgment rendered in favor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Templeton v. Scudder
...administration. See, Hart Steel Co. v. Railroad Supply Co., 244 U.S. 294, 37 S.Ct. 506, 61 L.Ed. 1148 (1917); Mabardy v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 26 F.Supp. 25 (D.C.Mass.1939). Nonetheless is it necessary to emphasize that in such summary inquiries it must 'palpably' appear that there ......
-
Sun Ins. Office v. Leshefsky, 282.
...under the rules. Culhane v. Jackson Hardware Co., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 324; Hufner v. Erie R. Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 855; Mabardy v. Railway Express Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 25; United States v. McCulloch, D.C., 26 F. Supp. 7; Walsh v. Connecticut Mutual L. I. Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 566. It appears ......
-
Central Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Gaumer
...Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Superior Insulating Tape Co., 8th Cir. 1960, 284 F.2d 478 (res judicata); Mabardy v. Railway Express Agency, D.Mass.1939, 26 F.Supp. 25 (collateral I am satisfied this was a proper case for summary judgment and, in view of the fact that the motion was filed su......
-
Mitchell v. David
...Advisory Committee, 8 Cir., 135 F.2d 108; Herzog v. DesLauriers Steel Mould Co., D.C., E.D.Pa., 46 F.Supp. 211; Mabardy v. Railway Express Agency, D.C., D.Mass., 26 F.Supp. 25; Ratner v. Paramount Pictures, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 6 F.R.S. 613. 4American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. United S......