Milton Savings Bank v. Amelung

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Milton Savings Bank v. Amelung

360 N.E.2d 1282, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 801, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 773

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 360 N.E.2d 1282 (Milton Savings Bank v. Amelung) 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

Milton Savings Bank v. Amelung, 360 N.E.2d 1282, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 801, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 773 (Mass. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court in a summary process action. G. L. c. 239. The only question argued is the constitutionality of G. L. c. 244, § 14. Assuming that that question might properly have been raised in a summary process proceeding [802]*802(see Wayne Inv. Corp. v. Abbott, 350 Mass. 775 [1966]), it was not raised below and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Young v. Mobil Oil Corp. 4 Mass. App. Ct. 805 (1976). Furthermore, the defendant had earlier instituted an action in the Superior Court in which she had sought to set aside the foreclosure of the mortgage by the present plaintiff. The constitutional question (if there was one) could have been raised in that action which was eventually dismissed by a judgment, the entry of which was assented to by the present defendant.

Thomas F. Heffernon (Andrej T. Starkis with him) for the defendant. John Brian Curran for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

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

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court in a summary process action. G. L. c. 239. The only question argued is the constitutionality of G. L. c. 244, § 14. Assuming that that question might properly have been raised in a summary process proceeding [802]*802(see Wayne Inv. Corp. v. Abbott, 350 Mass. 775 [1966]), it was not raised below and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Young v. Mobil Oil Corp. 4 Mass. App. Ct. 805 (1976). Furthermore, the defendant had earlier instituted an action in the Superior Court in which she had sought to set aside the foreclosure of the mortgage by the present plaintiff. The constitutional question (if there was one) could have been raised in that action which was eventually dismissed by a judgment, the entry of which was assented to by the present defendant.

Thomas F. Heffernon (Andrej T. Starkis with him) for the defendant. John Brian Curran for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 N.E.2d 1282, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 801, 1977 Mass. App. LEXIS 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milton-savings-bank-v-amelung-massappct-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack