ยง

Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

10 Mass. App. Ct. 47 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Ed Peters Jewelry Co. v. C & J Jewelry Co.

    124 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1997)   Cited 112 times
    Holding trial court "must perform its gatekeeping function, by assessing whether the testimony 'will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue'" (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 702)

    In the instant case, of course, there is no suggestion that Peters was not in default under its loan restructuring agreement with Fleet. Finally, Peters relies on Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 405 N.E.2d 985 (Mass.App.Ct. 1980), which upheld a denial of a motion to dismiss a "collusive foreclosure" claim that collateral worth over $3 million had been sold in a private foreclosure sale for only $879,159, the full amount of the secured debt. Id. at 987.

  2. Thomas v. Price

    975 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1992)   Cited 205 times
    Holding that "[t]o avoid a summary judgment, the nonmoving party must adduce admissible evidence which creates a fact issue"

    In support of his argument that under section 9.504(d) a private foreclosure sale may be nullified because of the purchaser's lack of good faith alone, Thomas cites two cases: In re Four Star Music Co., 2 B.R. 454, 29 U.C.C.Rep. 343 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Tenn. 1979); Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. 47, 405 N.E.2d 985, 29 U.C.C.Rep. 292 (1980). Neither one supports Thomas' proposition.

  3. Natl. Gypsum Co. v. Continental Brands

    895 F. Supp. 328 (D. Mass. 1995)   Cited 38 times
    Finding no "continuity of enterprise" exception in Massachusetts law and following "the traditional de facto merger or continuation analysis, with its keystones of continuous ownership and inequitable conduct"

    Because the transaction involved a foreclosure by BayBank on Continental's assets, the plaintiffs would also have to show that Continental colluded with BayBank in effecting the transfer. See Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 49, 405 N.E.2d 985 (1980). A transaction could fit within this category even if it was technically insolvent before the transaction if the sale was without fair consideration and had the effect of further diminishing the assets available to creditors.

  4. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp. v. HFH USA Corp.

    805 F. Supp. 133 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)   Cited 29 times
    Holding German law did not apply, according to previous version of N.Y. U.C.C. ยง 1-105; "[T]he parties' stipulation will not be regarded where it would operate to the detriment of strangers to the agreement, such as creditors or lienholders."

    Therefore, cases cited by HFH indicating that the secured party may be liable to junior or unsecured creditors are inapposite. See Liberty National Bank v. Acme Tool, 540 F.2d 1375 (10th Cir. 1976); and Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 405 N.E.2d 985 (1980). Those cases involve liquidation conducted by the secured party itself.

  5. Lee v. Daniel, No

    No. MICV20044428 (Mass. Cmmw. Feb. 3, 2006)

    In seeking to secure payment on an indebtedness which is owed, a creditor may bring an action to reach and apply property of the debtor. Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. H.D. Watts Co., 286 Mass. 556, 562 (1934), Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., Inc., 10 Mass.App.Ct. 47, 51 (1980). Actions to reach and apply involve a two-step process, requiring the establishment of an indebtedness on the part of the principal defendant to the plaintiff, and second, the process for collecting the debt out of property rights which cannot be reached on an execution.

  6. Francis v. Collins

    1985 Mass. App. Div. 172 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    In reviewing the disposition of a Rule 12 (b) (6) motion, the complaint must be read in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all facts alleged therein must be accepted as true. Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kotsas, 378 Mass. 85 (1979); Jones v. Brockton Public Markets, Inc., 369 Mass. 387 (1976); Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47 (1980). While civil rights complaints are to be liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Anderson v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Co., 521 F.2d 420 (8th Cir. 1975); Greene v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 469 F. Supp. 187, 193 (D. Md. 1979), more than mere conclusory allegations have been required in federal forum to defeat a Rule 12 (b) (6) challenge.