Legal Opinion

Ware Savings Bank v. Krupp

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided July 6, 1979PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This is an action brought on an indemnification agreement executed by the third-party defendants (appellants) in favor of the third-party plaintiffs (appellees). At the conclusion of the evidence the appellants moved to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence presented (see generally Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Mass. App. Ct. 346, 354-355 [1978]), and the appellees moved for a directed verdict. The judge denied the motion to amend and allowed the motion for a directed verdict. There was no error.

We think the judge’s ruling that the proposed amendment would have been futile was correct.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
  2. Baetjer v. New England Alcohol Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  3. Essex-Lincoln Garage, Inc. v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
  4. Johnson v. Norton Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
  5. Strong v. Merchants Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1977

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mancuso v. KinchlaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
  2. Hart v. FrostMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API