Ware Savings Bank v. Krupp
Massachusetts Appeals Court
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
- Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1978
- Baetjer v. New England Alcohol Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Essex-Lincoln Garage, Inc. v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1961
- Johnson v. Norton Housing AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978
- Strong v. Merchants Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1977
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mancuso v. KinchlaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
- Hart v. FrostMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1993