Lolos v. Berlin

170 N.E.2d 323, 341 Mass. 728
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lolos v. Berlin. Read the opinion of the Court — 338 Mass. 10
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 2, 1960·Published

Opinion

Order affirmed. This is an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion to amend a decree after rescript. In Lolos v. Berlin, 338 Mass. 10, 15, the original rescript had given the plaintiff leave to amend Ms bill to permit recovery of $668.15 with interest, and also had provided that the defendants should have costs of appeal. An amendment was allowed. The final decree after rescript provided (1) that the defendant Berlin pay the plaintiff the amount of $668.15 with $145.77 interest; (2) that the plaintiff pay the defendant Panetta, trustee, costs of $125.50; and (3) that the plaintiff pay the defendant Berlin costs of $12.50. The motion to amend the rescript sought to interchange the amounts of the costs so as to award the larger amount to the defendant Berlin. The plaintiff’s statement in his brief that the defendant Berlin has left the Commonwealth, if material, is not a fact in the record before us. The appealing party has not shown that there was error in the denial of his motion. The trial judge had discretion to allow a sum in excess of $50 for expenses actually incurred in printing the brief. G. L. c. 261, § 25.

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

Lolos v. Berlin, 170 N.E.2d 323, 341 Mass. 728 (Mass. 1960).

170 N.E.2d 323 (Lolos v. Berlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lolos v. Berlin
153 N.E.2d 636 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)