Cristy v. Rasmussen

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Cristy v. Rasmussen

134 N.E.2d 130, 334 Mass. 703

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 7, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 134 N.E.2d 130 (Cristy v. Rasmussen) 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

Cristy v. Rasmussen, 134 N.E.2d 130, 334 Mass. 703 (Mass. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree affirmed with costs of appeal. To this bill in equity for an accounting the defendant demurred, two of the grounds being vagueness and failure to state a cause of action. On December 7, 1949, an interlocutory decree was entered sustaining the demurrer on those grounds, and according leave to amend. On December 27,' 1949, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend, but, except for the placing of the case on the inactive list, nothing further occurred until April 11, 1955, when the motion was denied. On June 13, 1955, a final decree was entered dismissing the bill with costs. The plaintiff appealed. The only point argued is that the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion. In accordance with the rule that the exercise of discretion is reviewable on appeal in equity, we have examined the question and have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff’s contention is without merit. Abbott v. Bean, 285 Mass. 474, 478. Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574, 579. Hill v. Trustees of Glenwood Cemetery, 323 Mass. 388, 394.

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

Decree affirmed with costs of appeal. To this bill in equity for an accounting the defendant demurred, two of the grounds being vagueness and failure to state a cause of action. On December 7, 1949, an interlocutory decree was entered sustaining the demurrer on those grounds, and according leave to amend. On December 27,' 1949, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend, but, except for the placing of the case on the inactive list, nothing further occurred until April 11, 1955, when the motion was denied. On June 13, 1955, a final decree was entered dismissing the bill with costs. The plaintiff appealed. The only point argued is that the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion. In accordance with the rule that the exercise of discretion is reviewable on appeal in equity, we have examined the question and have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff’s contention is without merit. Abbott v. Bean, 285 Mass. 474, 478. Long v. George, 296 Mass. 574, 579. Hill v. Trustees of Glenwood Cemetery, 323 Mass. 388, 394.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 N.E.2d 130, 334 Mass. 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cristy-v-rasmussen-mass-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack