Norton v. Lilley
| Decision Date | 31 March 1913 |
| Citation | 101 N.E. 367,214 Mass. 239 |
| Parties | NORTON v. LILLEY (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
V. E. Barnes, of Westfield, pro se.
J. B. Carroll, W. H. McClintock, and J. F. Jennings, all of Springfield, for defendant.
After the decision in this case in 210 Mass. 214, 96 N.E. 351, the plaintiff filed a third motion to amend his declaration; two previous ones, as stated in the memorandum of decision filed by the presiding justice, having been waived by the plaintiff in open court. The presiding justice refused to allow the amendment and the plaintiff excepted. This is the only exception or question before us, though the plaintiff has attempted in his brief to argue matters relating to the correctness of the grounds of the decision in 210 Mass. 214, 96 N.E. 351, overruling the exceptions to the order of the court sustaining the demurrer and ordering judgment for the defendant.
Manifestly such matters are not now open to him. The allowance or disallowance of the amendment was within the discretion of the presiding justice; and as a general rule matters addressed to the discretion of a judge are not subject to exception. Terry v. Brightman, 133 Mass. 536; George v. Reed, 101 Mass. 378. There is nothing in this case to take it out of the general rule. If the question were open to review here, we see nothing to lead us to doubt that the discretion was properly exercised. The alleged causes of action set out in the third amended declaration, though described in some respects with greater detail than in the declaration in 210 Mass. 214, 96 N.E. 351, are the same in legal effect and the questions raised by it were passed upon in the former decision so far as necessary to the disposition of the case. Moreover the finding and ruling of the presiding justice that the causes of action were the same was conclusive as to their identity. Batchelder v. Pierce, 170 Mass. 260, 49 N.E. 310, and it would seem that his finding and ruling should have something of the same effect in case of a denial of an amendment.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Quincy v. Brooks-Skinner, Inc.
... ... to amend pleadings, it has been said that they are not ... subject to exception for the reason that they involve no ... question of law. Norton v. Lilley, 214 Mass. 239, ... 240, 101 N.E. 367; Goodyear Park Co. v. City of ... Holyoke, 298 Mass. 510, 512, 11 N.E.2d 439; Peterson ... v ... ...
-
Adams v. Richardson
...matter of law. To this ruling the plaintiffs excepted. No error is disclosed by these rulings and orders of the court. Norton v. Lilley, 214 Mass. 239, 240, 101 N. E. 367. A voluntary unincorporated association cannot sue as such. Pickett v. Walsh, 192 Mass. 572, 589, 78 N. E. 753,6 L. R. A......
-
Means v. Leveroni
...denial presents no question of law. Payson v. Macomber, 3 Allen, 69, 70;Barlow v. Nelson, 157 Mass. 395, 398, 32 N.E. 359;Norton v. Lilley, 214 Mass. 239, 101 N.E. 367;Brooks v. Gregory, 285 Mass. 197, 206, 189 N.E. 195. The appeal of the plaintiff from the denial of this motion was nugator......
-
Marcus v. Richardson
...192 N.E. 52. The allowance of such an amendment would have been discretionary. Pizer v. Hunt, 250 Mass. 498, 146 N.E. 7;Norton v. Lilley, 214 Mass. 239, 101 N.E. 367;Newburyport Institution for Savings v. Puffer, 201 Mass. 41, 87 N.E. 562. The suit is distinguishable from Mackintosh v. Cham......