Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

SUSAN M. POMBO, administratrix, vs. MARR EQUIPMENT CORPORATION.

This is an action of tort for conscious suffering and death. The court allowed the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and admitted facts. Prior thereto the plaintiff filed a motion to amend her writ and declaration to add, inter alia, a party defendant. The plaintiff's exception to the trial court's denial of that motion presents the sole question for decision. Nothing is presented here to take the case out of the general rule that the denial of a motion to amend is discretionary. No abuse of discretion is shown. Urban v. Central Mass. Elec. Co. 301 Mass. 519, 524. The denial of the motion in the absence of findings, rulings or requests for rulings (as in this case) presents no question of law. Keliher v. Champion, 358 Mass. 821.

Exceptions overruled.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

POMBO v. MARR EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
(May 9, 1973)