Shiretown Glass & Aluminum, Inc. v. Hamilton

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Shiretown Glass & Aluminum, Inc. v. Hamilton

360 N.E.2d 916, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 798

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 16, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 360 N.E.2d 916 (Shiretown Glass & Aluminum, Inc. v. Hamilton) 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

Shiretown Glass & Aluminum, Inc. v. Hamilton, 360 N.E.2d 916, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 798 (Mass. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

There was no error in the allowance of the defendant’s motion for judgment or in the entry of judgment. The record clearly shows that the plaintiff (1) was not the same party listed on documents filed pursuant to G. L. c. 254, § 10, to establish a subcontractor’s lien and (2) failed, despite ample opportunity, to seek to amend its complaint once the defendant’s answer signalled the discrepancy. Inasmuch as the plaintiff had more than six months between the time of the defendant’s answer and the entry of judgment to seek leave to amend its complaint, we see no reason to reward its dilatory conduct by permitting it to amend now. The judgment is affirmed with double costs.

So ordered.

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

There was no error in the allowance of the defendant’s motion for judgment or in the entry of judgment. The record clearly shows that the plaintiff (1) was not the same party listed on documents filed pursuant to G. L. c. 254, § 10, to establish a subcontractor’s lien and (2) failed, despite ample opportunity, to seek to amend its complaint once the defendant’s answer signalled the discrepancy. Inasmuch as the plaintiff had more than six months between the time of the defendant’s answer and the entry of judgment to seek leave to amend its complaint, we see no reason to reward its dilatory conduct by permitting it to amend now. The judgment is affirmed with double costs.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 N.E.2d 916, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shiretown-glass-aluminum-inc-v-hamilton-massappct-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack