Andrews v. Andrews

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Andrews v. Andrews

216 N.E.2d 451, 350 Mass. 781

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 28, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 N.E.2d 451 (Andrews v. Andrews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. Andrews, 216 N.E.2d 451, 350 Mass. 781 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of tort for the alienation of affections of his wife and loss of consortium, the plaintiff had a verdict. The sole question arises out of the defendant’s exception to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. After the bill of exceptions had been allowed the judge allowed the plaintiff’s motion to amend the bill by adding a sentence. Because it was his bill and he did not consent to the amendment, the defendant contends that the sentence added by the amendment is no part of the bill. See Ray, petitioner, 314 Mass. 195, 198. The correctness of this contention need not concern us; for viewing the evidence in the bill of exceptions, apart from the purported amendment, we are of opinion that it was sufficient to require the submission of the ease to the jury. The ease falls within the authority of such decisions as Gahagan v. Church, 239 Mass. 558, Bradstreet v. Wallace, 254 Mass. 509, Georgacopoulos v. Katralis, 318 Mass. 34, and Pataskas v. Judeikis, 327 Mass. 258, rather than Nigrosh v. Daniels, 349 Mass. 777, cited by the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In this action of tort for the alienation of affections of his wife and loss of consortium, the plaintiff had a verdict. The sole question arises out of the defendant’s exception to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. After the bill of exceptions had been allowed the judge allowed the plaintiff’s motion to amend the bill by adding a sentence. Because it was his bill and he did not consent to the amendment, the defendant contends that the sentence added by the amendment is no part of the bill. See Ray, petitioner, 314 Mass. 195, 198. The correctness of this contention need not concern us; for viewing the evidence in the bill of exceptions, apart from the purported amendment, we are of opinion that it was sufficient to require the submission of the ease to the jury. The ease falls within the authority of such decisions as Gahagan v. Church, 239 Mass. 558, Bradstreet v. Wallace, 254 Mass. 509, Georgacopoulos v. Katralis, 318 Mass. 34, and Pataskas v. Judeikis, 327 Mass. 258, rather than Nigrosh v. Daniels, 349 Mass. 777, cited by the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 N.E.2d 451, 350 Mass. 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-andrews-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack