Boston Trust Funds, Inc. v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 03 November 1960 |
| Citation | 341 Mass. 730,170 N.E.2d 318 |
| Parties | BOSTON TRUST FUNDS, INC. v. Ernest HENDERSON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Lawrence R. Cohen and Albert R. Mezoff, Boston, for plaintiff.
Edward B. Hanify, Boston, for defendants Henderson and others.
Charles C. Cabot, Boston, for defendant Hovey.
John S. Whipple, Boston, for defendant Second Bank-State Street Trust Co.
David A. Sutherland, Cambridge, for defendant Trust Securities Corp.
Richard C. Evarts, Boston, for defendant John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
Before SPALDING, WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE and CUTTER, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
In this action demurrers to the declaration were sustained, with leave to file an amended declaration within twenty-one days. The plaintiff seasonably filed a motion to amend its declaration and the motion was denied. Judgment was ordered for the defendants. To the action of the judge in denying its motion to amend and in ordering judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff excepted. The proposed declaration differed materially from the original declaration. An amendment setting out new causes of action could not rightly have been allowed. Massachusetts Gasoline & Oil Co. v. Go-Gas Co., 267 Mass. 122, 129, 166 N.E. 563. If it be assumed in favor of the plaintiff that the amended declaration related to the same causes of action as those set forth in the original declaration, the judge, nevertheless, could well have concluded that the substantive defects of the original declaration had not been cured by the proposed amendment. See Massachusetts Gasoline & Oil Co. v. Go-Gas Co. supra, 267 Mass. at page 126, 166 N.E. at page 564. The motion to amend was addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court. Foster v. Shubert Holding Co., 316 Mass. 470, 477, 55 N.E.2d 772. The disallowance of the motion reveals no abuse of discretion and judgment for the defendants was rightly ordered.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank J. Linhares Co., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co.
...the judge did not abuse the broad discretion accorded him in denying Linhares' motion to amend its bill (Boston Trust Funds, Inc. v. Henderson, 341 Mass. 730, 170 N.E.2d 318 (1960); Leventhal v. Dockser, 358 Mass. 799, 261 N.E.2d 64 (1970); THOMSON V. JET SPRAY CORP., 2 MASS.APP. --- , 307 ......
-
Schertzer v. City of Somerville
...to sustain the action 'for the cause for which it was intended to be brought.' G.L. c. 231, § 51. See Boston Trust Funds, Inc. v. Henderson, 341 Mass. 730, 731, 170 N.E.2d 318. The objective of the petitioners first stated in the original petition remained unchanged in the light of ordinanc......
-
Bengar v. Clark Equipment Co.
...the plaintiffs have attempted to substitute a new cause not intended when the tort action was begun"); Boston Trust Funds, Inc. v. Henderson, 341 Mass. 730, 731, 170 N.E.2d 318 (1960) ("An amendment setting out new causes of action could not rightly have been allowed"); Herlihy v. Little, 2......
-
Securities Co. of Mass v. Henderson
...WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE and CUTTER, JJ. RESCRIPT. See 'brief statement of the grounds and reasons of the decision' in Boston Trust Funds, Inc. v. Henderson, Mass., 170 N.E.2d 318. Exceptions ...