Reilly v. Revere Racing Ass'n

208 N.E.2d 232, 349 Mass. 763
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 4, 1965·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The defendants’ demurrers to the plaintiffs’ declarations in tort were sustained, with leave to the plaintiffs “to move to amend.” Each plaintiff thereupon filed a motion to amend, accompanied by a proposed amended declaration. Each motion was denied “for want of prosecution,” but with leave to file “a new and sufficient motion to amend . . . accompanied by the proposed amendment within 20 days.” Each plaintiff filed a second motion to amend with the same proposed amended declaration and, after a hearing thereon, each motion was denied. Each plaintiff excepted to the denial. The motions having been addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, their denial in the absence of findings, rulings, or requests for rulings presents no question of law. Means v. Leveroni, 297 Mass. 61, 64. Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co. 303 Mass. 53, 56. Durante v. Mezzetti, 332 Mass. 758. Cf. Peterson v. Cadogan, 313 Mass. 133, 134.

The case was submitted on briefs.

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

Reilly v. Revere Racing Ass'n, 208 N.E.2d 232, 349 Mass. 763 (Mass. 1965).

208 N.E.2d 232 (Reilly v. Revere Racing Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kenney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
246 N.E.2d 649 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1969)