From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomson v. Jet Spray Corp.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Mar 8, 1974
307 N.E.2d 849 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)

Opinion

March 8, 1974.

Joseph Schneider for the plaintiffs.

Francis J. Lawler for the defendants.



In each of these cases the defendants' demurrer to the plaintiff's substitute declaration was sustained. In each case, the plaintiff filed a timely motion for leave to amend that declaration (see Rule 23 of the Superior Court [1954]), attaching thereto a copy of the proposed amended declaration. In each case, the motion was denied after hearing. The cases are here solely on the plaintiffs' exceptions to those denials. The motions were "addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and [their] denial, in the absence of findings, rulings, or requests for rulings . . . presents no question of law." Keliher v. Champion, 358 Mass. 821 (1971), and cases cited. Compare Loranger Constr. Corp. v. E.F. Hauserman Co. 1 Mass. App. Ct. 801 (1973). In each case there was no abuse of discretion.

Exceptions overruled.


Summaries of

Thomson v. Jet Spray Corp.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Mar 8, 1974
307 N.E.2d 849 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)
Case details for

Thomson v. Jet Spray Corp.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT B. THOMSON vs. JET SPRAY CORP. others (and a companion case )

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Mar 8, 1974

Citations

307 N.E.2d 849 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)
307 N.E.2d 849

Citing Cases

Frank J. Linhares Co., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co.

Linhares' Motion for Leave to Amend Although it is apparent that the judge did not abuse the broad discretion…