From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

South Shore Bank v. Stepco Precast, Inc.

Massachusetts Appellate Division, Southern District
Apr 13, 1995
1995 Mass. App. Div. 50 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Opinion

April 13, 1995.

Present: Hurley Aguiar, JJ.

Presiding Justice John J. Dolan did not participate in this decision.

Bills and Notes, Promissory notes; Guarantees. Practice, Civil, Report, Failure to prosecute.

Report of court's dismissal of non-corporate defendants' report. Action heard in the Taunton Division by W. James O'Neill, J.

Kevin J. O'Malley for the plaintiff.

Michael T. McGahan for defendant William Grant.

Van L. Hayhow for defendants Ralph Vickery and Lynne Vickery.



This Report, claimed by the non-corporate defendants, seeks review of the trial judge's allowance of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. We dismiss the Report.

The plaintiff brought suit to recover sums due from the defendants pursuant to promissory notes executed and guaranteed by them. After hearing, the judge allowed the motion as to liability. After a hearing to assess damages, judgment was entered against all defendants.

The Report was claimed by the non-corporate defendants. Beyond the filing of the Report, no further action to prosecute the Report has been taken. The appellants have not filed a brief Effectively they raise no issue nor error before this division. The Report is dismissed.

Dist./Mun. Cts. R. A. D. A., Rule 19 (c) provides consequences for failure to file briefs.


Summaries of

South Shore Bank v. Stepco Precast, Inc.

Massachusetts Appellate Division, Southern District
Apr 13, 1995
1995 Mass. App. Div. 50 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)
Case details for

South Shore Bank v. Stepco Precast, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:South Shore Bank vs. Stepco Precast, Inc., and others

Court:Massachusetts Appellate Division, Southern District

Date published: Apr 13, 1995

Citations

1995 Mass. App. Div. 50 (Mass. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing Cases

McCartin v. Bishop Street Investment Co.

By not submitting a brief, he has effectively raised no error of law for this court to decide. Compare South…

LUIZ v. BIRD ROOFING PRODUCTS, INC

By not submitting a brief, appellant Bird has effectively raised no error of law for this court to decide.…