Sweda Intern., Inc. v. Donut Maker, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 January 1982 |
| Citation | 430 N.E.2d 439,13 Mass.App.Ct. 914 |
| Parties | SWEDA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. DONUT MAKER, INC. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Paul A. Kramer, Boston, for defendant.
Jerrold N. Arnowitz, Boston, for plaintiff, submitted a brief.
Before GRANT, GREANEY and DREBEN, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant appealed from a summary judgment which was entered against it in the Superior Court on the basis of the prima facie effect of an earlier finding for the plaintiff in a District Court. See G.L. c. 231, §§ 104 and 102C, as appearing in St.1978, c. 478, §§ 263 and 262, respectively; O'Brion, Russell & Co. v. LeMay, 370 Mass. 243, 243-244, 346 N.E.2d 861 (1976). 1. The lone affidavit submitted by the defendant in opposition to the plaintiff's motion was deficient because it failed to recite that it was "made on (the) personal knowledge" of the affiant or to "show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein," as required by Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(e), 365 Mass. 825 (1974). Compare Shapiro Equip. Corp. v. Morris & Son Constr. Corp., 369 Mass. 968, 968-969, 341 N.E.2d 668 (1976); Pupecki v. James Madison Corp., 376 Mass. 212, 217 n.5, 382 N.E.2d 1030 (1978); Stanton Indus. Inc. v. Columbus Mills, Inc., 4 Mass.App. 793, 794, 344 N.E.2d 199 (1976). Contrast First Natl. Bank v. North Adams Hoosac Sav. Bank, 7 Mass.App. 790, 793-794, 391 N.E.2d 689 (1979). Although the judge could have overlooked the deficiencies in the affidavit (see Stetson v. Selectmen of Carlisle, 369 Mass. 755, 763 n.12, 343 N.E.2d 382 (1976); Stepan Chem. Corp. v. Wilmington, 8 Mass.App. 880, 391 N.E.2d 1247 (1979)), he was not required to do so. 2. The defendant fares no better with its answers to the interrogatories which were propounded to it in the District Court. The particular answer relied on failed to set forth specific facts showing that there was a genuine triable issue. See and compare Community Natl. Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 554, 555-556, 558-559 & n.8, 340 N.E.2d 877 (1976); O'Brion, Russell & Co. v. LeMay, 370 Mass. at 244, 245, 346 N.E.2d 861; Vaught Constr. Corp. v. Bertonazzi Buick Co., 371 Mass. 553, 561, 359 N.E.2d 286 (1976); Royal Bank of Canada v. Connolly, 9 Mass.App. 905, --- Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1980) 815, 815-816, 403 N.E.2d 423 (1980). Equally important, none of the answers met the requirements for affidavits which are set out in rule 56(e) and quoted in part 1 hereof. See S & S Logging Co. v. Barker, 366 F.2d 617, 624-625 n.7 (9th Cir. 1966); H. B. Zachry Co. v. O'Brien, 378 F.2d 423, 425-426 (10th Cir. 1967); Schwartz v. Compagnie Gen. Transatlantique, 405 F.2d 270, 273 (2d Cir. 1968); Maryland ex rel. Barresi v. Hatch, 198 F.Supp. 1, 2-3 (D.Conn.1961); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2722, at 480-481, 483-484 (1973). To the contrary, it is quite apparent that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zaleskas v. Brigham & Women's Hosp.
...on information and belief could be considered in its entirety in absence of motion to strike); Sweda Int'l, Inc. v. Donut Maker, Inc., 13 Mass. App. Ct. 914, 430 N.E.2d 439 (1982) (in considering "affidavit" that failed to show affiant was competent to testify, judge was permitted, though n......
-
USTrust Co. v. Kennedy
...v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197, 203 (7th Cir.1970); 6 Moore's Federal Practice, par. 56.14, at 58-357. Cf. Sweda Intl., Inc. v. Donut Maker, Inc., 13 Mass.App.Ct. 914, 430 N.E.2d 439 (1982). On too many occasions rigidity in application of the rules would encumber, rather than direct, the course......
-
Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Corcoran
...968, 341 N.E.2d 668 (1976); Dattoli v. Hale Hosp., 400 Mass. 175, 178-179, 508 N.E.2d 100 (1987); Sweda Intl., Inc. v. Donut Maker, Inc., 13 Mass.App.Ct. 914, 914, 430 N.E.2d 439 (1982); J.J. Finn Elec. Serv., Inc. v. P & H General Contractors, Inc., 13 Mass.App.Ct. 973, 974, 432 N.E.2d 116......