McLaughlin v. West End St. Ry. Co.

Decision Date22 June 1904
PartiesMcLAUGHLIN v. WEST END ST. RY. CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

Daggett Young & Jefferson, for plaintiff.

M. F Dickinson and Walter Bates Farr, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, C.J.

The plaintiff was injured while on the cars of the West End Street Railway Company, and brought a suit to recover for the injury. In the meantime a lease had been made to the Boston Elevated Railway Company, which latter corporation assumed all obligations and liabilities of the former corporation and began to operate the road. Suit was brought against this latter corporation. The plaintiff was allowed to amend her writ by substituting the West End Street Railway Company for the Boston Elevated Railway Company as defendant, and the question submitted on the report is whether the order allowing the amendment was within the authority of the court.

The cause of action for which the suit was brought was the injury, and the plaintiff intended to bring it against the party liable for the injury. Our statute is very liberal in allowing any amendment 'in matter of form or substance which may enable the plaintiff to sustain the action for the cause for which it was intended to be brought.' Rev. Laws, c. 173, § 48. 'The allowance by the court of the amendment shall be conclusive evidence of the identity of the cause of action.' Rev. Laws, c. 173, § 121; Batchelder v. Pierce, 170 Mass. 260, 49 N.E. 310, and cases cited; Driscoll v. Holt, 170 Mass. 262, 49 N.E. 309. An amendment may substitute one party for another. Winch v. Hosmer, 122 Mass. 438; Hutchinson v. Tucker, 124 Mass. 240; Lewis v. Austin, 144 Mass. 383, 11 N.E. 538. The defendant contends that this rule should not go so far as to permit the substitution of one sole defendant for another sole defendant. But this objection is covered by the decision in Adams v. Weeks, 174 Mass. 45, 54 N.E. 350, in which an amendment of this kind was held to have been rightly allowed. We see no good reason why the rule should not be the same in reference to a change of the party defendant as of a change of the party plaintiff.

The defendant contends that such an amendment cannot be allowed if, at the time of proposing it, the action would have been barred by the statute of limitations if no suit had been brought. But the fact that a claim would be lost if an amendment was not allowed has often been considered an additional reason for allowing one, if in other respects the case was within the rule permitting amendments. George v Reed, 101 Mass....

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
  • Farrell v. Votator Division of Chemetron Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 22 Enero 1973
    ...of the complaint the plaintiff is not barred by limitations so long as the original complaint was timely. See McLaughlin v. West End St. Ry. Co., 186 Mass. 150, 71 N.E. 317 (1904); 'Developments in the Law--Statutes of Limitations,' 63 Harv.L.Rev. 1177, 1240 n. 524 (1950); Annot., 'Change i......
  • Gallagher v. Wheeler
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 7 Diciembre 1935
    ... ... meritorious claim. Cogswell v. Hall, 185 Mass. 455, ... 456, 70 N.E. 461; McLaughlin v. West End Street Railway ... Co., 186 Mass. 150, 71 N.E. 317; Tracy v. Boston & Northern Street Railway Co., 204 Mass. 13, 16, 90 N.E ... 416; ... ...
  • Genga v. New York, N.H.&H.R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 29 Noviembre 1922
    ...1054;Lester v. Lester, 8 Gray, 437;Knights v. Treasurer & Receiver General, 236 Mass. 336, 341, 128 N. E. 637;McLaughlin v. West End Street Railway Co., 186 Mass. 150, 71 N. E. 317;Cogswell v. Hall, 185 Mass. 455, 70 N. E. 461;Tracy v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 204 Mass. 13, 16, 90 ......
  • Knights v. Burrell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 14 Octubre 1920
    ...by amendment to bring in a new party defendant in substitution for the one originally named as defendant, McLaughlin v. West End Street Railway, 186 Mass. 150, 71 N. E. 317, nevertheless a cause of action not in existence at the time the proceedings were instituted, and arising thereafter, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT