Beckwith v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Beckwith v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority

238 N.E.2d 364, 354 Mass. 766, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 955

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 29, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 N.E.2d 364 (Beckwith v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority) 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

Beckwith v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, 238 N.E.2d 364, 354 Mass. 766, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 955 (Mass. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiffs brought an action in tort “for trespass to real property and negligence resulting in damage to real property.” The declaration alleged that the “defendant, as part of its construction on Beacon Street, raised the sidewalk and street level [adjacent to the plaintiffs’ premises] by approximately seven inches,” causing certain damage to the plaintiffs’ building and its contents. The writ and declaration were entered on June 7, 1965, but no further pleadings were filed until October 13, 1967, when the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the declaration by substituting a petition for assessment of damages. This motion was denied by a judge of the Superior Court who also sustained a demurrer filed by the defendant in the original action. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion “to amend their [w]rit by substituting the words ‘by [b]ill in [e]quity for [declaratory [j]udgment’ wherever the words ‘in [t]art’ appear; to remove the action to the equity side of the . . . [c]curt; and ... to substitute [b]ill in [e]quity for [d]eclaratory [j]udgment in [p]lace of [d]eclaration.” This motion was denied. The plaintiffs admit that the demurrer to the original action was correctly sustained. They except, however, to the denial of their motions to amend. There is no need for an extended discussion of the issue presented. It is obvious that the plaintiffs have attempted to substitute a new cause not intended when the tort action was begun. We note also that the statute of [767]*767limitations on an assessment of damages had run before the motion to amend was filed. G. L. c. 79, § 16. Peterson v. Waltham, 150 Mass. 564. Hester v. Brockton, 251 Mass. 41. DeVincent v. Public Welfare Commn. of Waltham, 319 Mass. 170, 171. Del Grosso v. Board of Appeal of Revere, 330 Mass. 29, 32, and cases cited. There was no error in the denial of the motions.

Allan R. Rosenberg for the plaintiffs. Paul A. Kelley for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

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

The plaintiffs brought an action in tort “for trespass to real property and negligence resulting in damage to real property.” The declaration alleged that the “defendant, as part of its construction on Beacon Street, raised the sidewalk and street level [adjacent to the plaintiffs’ premises] by approximately seven inches,” causing certain damage to the plaintiffs’ building and its contents. The writ and declaration were entered on June 7, 1965, but no further pleadings were filed until October 13, 1967, when the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the declaration by substituting a petition for assessment of damages. This motion was denied by a judge of the Superior Court who also sustained a demurrer filed by the defendant in the original action. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion “to amend their [w]rit by substituting the words ‘by [b]ill in [e]quity for [declaratory [j]udgment’ wherever the words ‘in [t]art’ appear; to remove the action to the equity side of the . . . [c]curt; and ... to substitute [b]ill in [e]quity for [d]eclaratory [j]udgment in [p]lace of [d]eclaration.” This motion was denied. The plaintiffs admit that the demurrer to the original action was correctly sustained. They except, however, to the denial of their motions to amend. There is no need for an extended discussion of the issue presented. It is obvious that the plaintiffs have attempted to substitute a new cause not intended when the tort action was begun. We note also that the statute of [767]*767limitations on an assessment of damages had run before the motion to amend was filed. G. L. c. 79, § 16. Peterson v. Waltham, 150 Mass. 564. Hester v. Brockton, 251 Mass. 41. DeVincent v. Public Welfare Commn. of Waltham, 319 Mass. 170, 171. Del Grosso v. Board of Appeal of Revere, 330 Mass. 29, 32, and cases cited. There was no error in the denial of the motions.

Allan R. Rosenberg for the plaintiffs. Paul A. Kelley for the defendant.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 N.E.2d 364, 354 Mass. 766, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beckwith-v-massachusetts-turnpike-authority-mass-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack