Loranger Const. Corp. v. E. F. Hauserman Co.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1973 |
| Parties | LORANGER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. The E. F. HAUSERMAN COMPANY. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Donald J. Fleming, Mattapoisett, for plaintiff.
James M. Cronin, New Bedford, for defendant.
Before ROSE, GOODMAN and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The plaintiff, Loranger Construction Corporation, appeals from an order of the Superior Court denying its motion for leave to file a second substituted declaration. Prior to this, demurrers to the original declaration and a first substituted declaration had been sustained. Ordinarily, a motion for leave to amend is within the trial judge's discretion and is not appealable under G.L. c. 231, § 96. Means v. Leveroni,297 Mass. 61, 64, 7 N.E.2d 418. Abrams v. Factory Mutual Liability Insurance Company, 298 Mass. 141, 146, 10 N.E.2d 82. In the instant case, however, the trial judge stated as his reason for denial: 'Court being of opinion there is no cause of action.' This is a ruling of law as to a matter apparent on the record, in the circumstances is decisive of the case, and hence is appealable under § 96. Looking at count 1 of the plaintiff's amended declaration, we find that it does set out a cause of action in contract. It alleges an agreement, a breach and the resultant damages. Clark v. Gulesian, 197 Mass. 492, 84 N.E. 94. Daddario v. Pittsfield, 301 Mass. 552, 17 N.E.2d 894. It is only necessary that the plaintiff state the substantive facts necessary to constitute the cause of action with substantial certainty. G.L. c. 231, § 7. The order denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is reversed and an order is to be entered allowing that motion.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guckenberger v. Boston University
...See Arthur D. Little Int'l, Inc. v. Dooyang Corp., 928 F.Supp. 1189, 1201 (D.Mass.1996); Loranger Const. Corp. v. E.F. Hauserman, Co., 1 Mass.App.Ct. 801, 801, 294 N.E.2d 453, 454 (1973). Plaintiffs allege that BU "published and disseminated various brochures, catalogues, and promotional ma......
-
Loranger Const. Corp. v. E. F. Hauserman Co.
...held that count 1 of the amended declaration did set out a cause of action, and reversed the order denying leave to amend. 1 Mass.App. 801, 294 N.E.2d 453 (1973). Thereafter the plaintiff filed an amended declaration containing four counts, the case was tried to a jury in October, 1974, and......
-
A.J. Props., LLC v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
...v. Boston Univ., 957 F.Supp. 306, 316 (D.Mass.1997) (citations omitted); see also Loranger Const. Corp. v. E.F. Hauserman, Co., 1 Mass.App.Ct. 801, 801, 294 N.E.2d 453 (1973). The assignment contracts to which Stanley was a party are the 2002 Settlement Agreement and the 2003 Wyman–Gordon A......
-
Galvin v. Excel Switching Corp., 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 233 (Mass. Super. 5/31/2006), 20042997BLS2
...terms of the agreement without legal excuse, and that the defendants' breach caused the plaintiffs damage. Loranger Constr. Corp. v. E.F. Hauserman Co., 1 Mass.App.Ct. 801, 801 (1973); Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 957 F.Sup. 306, 316 (D.Mass. Use of RAScom Hire Date The plaintiffs allege t......