Sanger v. City of Newton

134 Mass. 308, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 292
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 10, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 134 Mass. 308 (Sanger v. City of Newton) 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
Sanger v. City of Newton, 134 Mass. 308, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 292 (Mass. 1883).

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

Our statutes of amendment are very broad, and authorize the courts to allow amendments in any matter, “ either of form or substance, in any process, pleading or proceeding, which may enable the plaintiff to sustain the action for the cause for which it was intended to be brought, or the defendant to make a legal defence.” Pub. Sts. c. 167, §§ 41, 42, 85. It has been held that, under these provisions, amendments may be allowed by county commissioners to a petition for a jury for the assessment of damages caused by laying out a highway. Grand Junction Railroad & Depot Co. v. County Commissioners, 14 Gray, 553. Winchester v. County Commissioners, 114 Mass. 481.

The petition in the case at bar is a proceeding in the nature of a civil action, analogous to a petition for the assessment of highway damages, and comes within the spirit of the statutes of. amendments.

The fact that the three years within which an original petition could be filed have elapsed furnishes no ground for refusing [310]*310the amendment, but rather a reason why it should be allowed, as otherwise substantial justice will be defeated. George v. Reed, 101 Mass. 378.

The Superior Court rejected the amendments proposed by the petitioner, on the ground that it had “no power to allow the same, and solely for that reason.” We are of opinion that this was an error; and that the court has power to allow the amendments proposed, or any other amendments necessary to enable the petitioner to maintain his action for the cause for which it was intended to be brought. Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Long v. George
7 N.E.2d 149 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Attorney General v. Henry
159 N.E. 539 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Maker v. Bouthier
242 Mass. 20 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Baker v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
184 S.W. 257 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Clark v. Oregon Short Line R. R.
99 P. 298 (Montana Supreme Court, 1909)
Hernan v. American Bridge Co.
167 F. 930 (Sixth Circuit, 1909)
Wise v. Outtrim
117 N.W. 264 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1908)
In re J. M. Mertens & Co.
147 F. 177 (Second Circuit, 1906)
Bainum v. American Bridge Co. of New York
141 F. 179 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1905)
McLaughlin v. West End Street Railway Co.
71 N.E. 317 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
King v. Howes
63 N.E. 1062 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Smith v. Butler
57 N.E. 322 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)
McDonald v. Nebraska
101 F. 171 (Eighth Circuit, 1900)
Whalen v. Gordon
95 F. 305 (Eighth Circuit, 1899)
Gray v. Inhabitants of Everett
39 N.E. 774 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Dowsett v. Jones
9 Haw. 543 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1894)
Peterson v. City of Waltham
23 N.E. 236 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 Mass. 308, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanger-v-city-of-newton-mass-1883.