Home COMMONWEALTH vs. LEO PAUL MAYER.

349 Mass. 765

June 4, 1965

Judgment affirmed. This case, arising from an indictment charging the defendant with breaking and entering and larceny in the night time, is governed by what is said in Commonwealth v. Mayer, ante, 253, decided this day, where the same issue was presented and argued.

Home CLARA HARRIGAN, administratrix, vs. CAPE COD HOSPITAL.

349 Mass. 765

June 4, 1965

Order sustaining demurrer affirmed. Judgment for the defendant. In this action of tort against a charitable institution for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff's intestate due to the negligence of its employees, the defendant's demurrer to the declaration was sustained. The plaintiff appealed. She now seeks to have us overrule our decisions relating to charitable immunity. This we decline to do. See, for example, Roosen v. Peter Bent Brigham Hosp. 235 Mass. 66 ; Bearse v. New England Deaconess Hosp. 321 Mass. 750 ; Mastrangelo v. Maverick Dispensary, 330 Mass. 708 ; Barrett v. Brooks Hosp. Inc. 338 Mass. 754 ; Simpson v. Truesdale Hosp. Inc. 338 Mass. 787 ; Boxer v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc. 342 Mass. 537 , 542.

Home JOSEPH M. CHERNAIK vs. JOHN P. CREAN.

349 Mass. 765

June 4, 1965

Chernaik seeks from Crean, inter alia, an accounting of a partnership formerly engaged in obtaining compulsory motor vehicle insurance for assigned risks. A master's report was modified and then confirmed. Chernaik's only appeal is from the final decree (1) that the partnership was dissolved on December 9, 1961; (2) that each partner's interest then was worth $6,000, of which each has received $3,192.74; and (3) that either partner may buy the other's remaining interest for $2,807.26. There was basis in the master's report for the conclusion that the dissolution took place as provided in the partnership agreement. See Murray v. Bateman, 315 Mass. 113 , 115. See also G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 108A, Section 31 (1) (b). Prompt surrender of the partnership insurance license showed that the partnership was not intended to continue. Cf. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 108A, Section 23 (2). The determination of the value of each partner's interest at dissolution was justified upon the modified master's report. See Whitman v. Jones, 322 Mass. 340 , 342-343. Chernaik since 1961 has acquiesced in Crean's collecting, for the former partners, the income from former partnership

Page 766

accounts, thus realizing for each partner a portion of the partnership's value at its dissolution. Crean has not been shown to have acted in any respect improperly. The final decree is affirmed, provided, however, that, if Crean so requests within thirty days after the date of the rescript, the final decree may be modified to provide that Crean may purchase Chernaik's remaining share for $2,807.26 without interest, less any amount from former partnership accounts paid to Chernaik by Crean since the date of the original final decree. Crean is to have costs of appeal.