Armstrong v. Stone

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Armstrong v. Stone

419 N.E.2d 853, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 1012, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1045

DecidedApril 24, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 419 N.E.2d 853 (Armstrong v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. Stone, 419 N.E.2d 853, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 1012, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1045 (Mass. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment was properly entered for the defendant (a) in light of and for reasons given by the master in par. 11 of his subsidiary findings and in pars. 4b, 5, 8, 9 and 12 of his general findings and (b) for the reason given by the judge when he denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the aforementioned pars. 8, 9 and 12 and allowed the defendant’s motion to adopt the [1013]*1013master’s report. Creed v. Apog, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 365, 372-373 (1978), modified on another point, 377 Mass. 522 (1979). Contrast Lipis v. Landano, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 894 (1979). The plaintiff’s reliance on Tristram’s Landing Inc. v. Wait, 367 Mass. 622, 629 (1975), Kinchla v. Welsh, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 367, 370-371 (1979), and Kenny v. DiCenso, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 835 (1980), is misplaced.

John P. Connor, Jr., for the plaintiff. Robert W. Harrington (Judith E. Diamond with him) for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Judgment was properly entered for the defendant (a) in light of and for reasons given by the master in par. 11 of his subsidiary findings and in pars. 4b, 5, 8, 9 and 12 of his general findings and (b) for the reason given by the judge when he denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the aforementioned pars. 8, 9 and 12 and allowed the defendant’s motion to adopt the [1013]*1013master’s report. Creed v. Apog, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 365, 372-373 (1978), modified on another point, 377 Mass. 522 (1979). Contrast Lipis v. Landano, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 894 (1979). The plaintiff’s reliance on Tristram’s Landing Inc. v. Wait, 367 Mass. 622, 629 (1975), Kinchla v. Welsh, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 367, 370-371 (1979), and Kenny v. DiCenso, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 835 (1980), is misplaced.

John P. Connor, Jr., for the plaintiff. Robert W. Harrington (Judith E. Diamond with him) for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 N.E.2d 853, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 1012, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-stone-massappct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack