Thomson v. Jet Spray Corp.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Thomson v. Jet Spray Corp.

307 N.E.2d 849, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 797, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 732

DecidedMarch 8, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 307 N.E.2d 849 (Thomson v. Jet Spray Corp.) 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

Thomson v. Jet Spray Corp., 307 N.E.2d 849, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 797, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 732 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In each of these cases the defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiff’s substitute declaration was sustained. In each case, the plaintiff filed a timely motion for leave to amend that declaration (see Rule 23 of the Superior Court [1954]), attaching thereto a copy of the proposed amended declaration. In each case, the motion was denied after hearing. The cases are here solely on the plaintiffs’ exceptions to those denials. The motions were “ad[798]*798dressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and [their] denial, in the absence of findings, rulings, or requests for rulings . . . presents no question of law.” Keliher v. Champion, 358 Mass. 821 (1971), and cases cited. Compare Loranger Constr. Corp. v. E. F. Hauserman Co. 1 Mass. App. Ct. 801 (1973). In each case there was no abuse of discretion.

Joseph Schneider for the plaintiffs. Francis J. Lawler for the defendants.

Exceptions overruled.

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

In each of these cases the defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiff’s substitute declaration was sustained. In each case, the plaintiff filed a timely motion for leave to amend that declaration (see Rule 23 of the Superior Court [1954]), attaching thereto a copy of the proposed amended declaration. In each case, the motion was denied after hearing. The cases are here solely on the plaintiffs’ exceptions to those denials. The motions were “ad[798]*798dressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and [their] denial, in the absence of findings, rulings, or requests for rulings . . . presents no question of law.” Keliher v. Champion, 358 Mass. 821 (1971), and cases cited. Compare Loranger Constr. Corp. v. E. F. Hauserman Co. 1 Mass. App. Ct. 801 (1973). In each case there was no abuse of discretion.

Joseph Schneider for the plaintiffs. Francis J. Lawler for the defendants.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 N.E.2d 849, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 797, 1974 Mass. App. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomson-v-jet-spray-corp-massappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack