CHESTER RUDNICKI vs. GEORGE SCHIRAGA & another.

Annotate this Case

CHESTER RUDNICKI vs. GEORGE SCHIRAGA & another.

347 Mass. 774

May 1, 1964

Orders sustaining demurrers affirmed. Motions denied. After a hearing the judge sustained the demurrers of both defendants and denied the plaintiff's motion to default the defendant Schiraga because he had "refused to serve any answer upon the plaintiff." There was no error. The declaration

Page 775

does not "state concisely and with substantial certainty the substantive facts necessary to constitute . . . [a] cause of action." G. L. c. 231, Section 7, Second. Section 18, Fourth. The appeal does not bring before us the denial of the motion to default. G. L. c. 231, Section 96. McCarthy v. Hawes, 299 Mass. 340 , 340-341. Although the plaintiff claimed exceptions to the action of the trial judge, there is no bill of exceptions. In any event no error is shown. Even if the motion to default could be deemed a motion to strike pleadings under Rule 21 of the Superior Court (1954), it does not appear from the record that the plaintiff made written demand for copies of Schiraga's pleadings as required by Rule 21 or that he did not receive copies. No basis is shown for the plaintiff's motions filed in this court to order the defendants' attorneys to stop interfering with the plaintiff's civil rights and to censure them.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.