E. F. Hodgson Co. v. Lisanti

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

E. F. Hodgson Co. v. Lisanti

159 N.E.2d 67, 339 Mass. 775, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 919

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 8, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 N.E.2d 67 (E. F. Hodgson Co. v. Lisanti) 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

E. F. Hodgson Co. v. Lisanti, 159 N.E.2d 67, 339 Mass. 775, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 919 (Mass. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. These are exceptions to the denial of motions for new trials made by the owner in an action brought against him by a [776]*776building contractor and in his cross action against the contractor. The actions were consolidated for trial and after being heard by an auditor were tried before a jury. There was an exception saved by the owner during the trial to the denial of his motion to amend his declaration by adding a count alleging intentional breach of contract — a matter of discretion, Rich v. Finley, 325 Mass. 99, 108, and not preserved by incorporating it in a bill of exceptions. Haines Corp. v. Winthrop Square Cafe, Inc. 335 Mass. 152, 154. The owner contends that the verdicts were inconsistent, and that the one awarded to the contractor contained mathematical errors. The time for raising either point as a matter of right was when the verdicts were returned and before they were recorded. There was no error in the denial of the motions for new trials. Low Supply Co. v. Pappacostopoulous, 283 Mass. 633, 635. Leonard v. Woodward, 305 Mass. 332, 338. Phillips v. Larson, 323 Mass. 87, 91. Chaplain v. Dugas, 323 Mass. 91, 95.

J. Fleet Cowden, for Lisanti. Charles L. Donahue, for E. F. Hodgson Co., Inc.

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

Exceptions overruled. These are exceptions to the denial of motions for new trials made by the owner in an action brought against him by a [776]*776building contractor and in his cross action against the contractor. The actions were consolidated for trial and after being heard by an auditor were tried before a jury. There was an exception saved by the owner during the trial to the denial of his motion to amend his declaration by adding a count alleging intentional breach of contract — a matter of discretion, Rich v. Finley, 325 Mass. 99, 108, and not preserved by incorporating it in a bill of exceptions. Haines Corp. v. Winthrop Square Cafe, Inc. 335 Mass. 152, 154. The owner contends that the verdicts were inconsistent, and that the one awarded to the contractor contained mathematical errors. The time for raising either point as a matter of right was when the verdicts were returned and before they were recorded. There was no error in the denial of the motions for new trials. Low Supply Co. v. Pappacostopoulous, 283 Mass. 633, 635. Leonard v. Woodward, 305 Mass. 332, 338. Phillips v. Larson, 323 Mass. 87, 91. Chaplain v. Dugas, 323 Mass. 91, 95.

J. Fleet Cowden, for Lisanti. Charles L. Donahue, for E. F. Hodgson Co., Inc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.E.2d 67, 339 Mass. 775, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-f-hodgson-co-v-lisanti-mass-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack