equity rule in Massachusetts

2014For the exercise of that discretion it recommended “without limitation” such criteria as: “[1] the relative predominance of the equitable and damages claims in the particular case — put another way, whether the gravamen of the complaint sounds in equity or law; [2] whether the scope of the action, even with the equity claim included, is more similar to actions fitting within the $25,000 or less amount in controversy limitation; and [3] whether the resolution of the matter will be substantially delayed by dismissal or particularly costly to the parties because of the number of filings that will

2014The superior court judge in deciding whether to retain the case for trial or dismiss, may consider such relevant factors as “the relative predominance of the equitable and damages claims in the particular case — put another way, whether the gravamen of the complaint sounds in equity or law; whether the scope of the action, even with the equity claim included, is more similar to actions fitting within the $25,000 or less amount in controversy limitation; and whether the resolution of the matter will be substantially delayed by dismissal or particularly costly to the parties because of the numbe

1973Lowell Bar Assn. v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 178 .

1946Lowell Bar Association v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 178 , and cases cited.

1992Among the other exceptions noted in the article are (1) an actual breach accompanied by an anticipatory breach (see Parker v. Russell, 133 Mass. 74 [1882], and progeny); (2) an action for rescission at the time of a repudiation (see Ballou v. Billings, 136 Mass. 307 [1884]; Gillis v. Bonelli-Adams Co., 284 Mass. 176 [1933]); and (3) similar to the equity exception invoked here, an action for quantum meruit (see Johnson v. Starr, 321 Mass. 566 [1947]).

1992Among the other exceptions noted in the article are (1) an actual breach accompanied by an anticipatory breach (see Parker v. Russell, 133 Mass. 74 [1882], and progeny); (2) an action for rescission at the time of a repudiation (see Ballou v. Billings, 136 Mass. 307 [1884]; Gillis v. Bonelli-Adams Co., 284 Mass. 176 [1933]); and (3) similar to the equity exception invoked here, an action for quantum meruit (see Johnson v. Starr, 321 Mass. 566 [1947]).

1992Among the other exceptions noted in the article are (1) an actual breach accompanied by an anticipatory breach (see Parker v. Russell, 133 Mass. 74 [1882], and progeny); (2) an action for rescission at the time of a repudiation (see Ballou v. Billings, 136 Mass. 307 [1884]; Gillis v. Bonelli-Adams Co., 284 Mass. 176 [1933]); and (3) similar to the equity exception invoked here, an action for quantum meruit (see Johnson v. Starr, 321 Mass. 566 [1947]).

1992Among the other exceptions noted in the article are (1) an actual breach accompanied by an anticipatory breach (see Parker v. Russell, 133 Mass. 74 [1882], and progeny); (2) an action for rescission at the time of a repudiation (see Ballou v. Billings, 136 Mass. 307 [1884]; Gillis v. Bonelli-Adams Co., 284 Mass. 176 [1933]); and (3) similar to the equity exception invoked here, an action for quantum meruit (see Johnson v. Starr, 321 Mass. 566 [1947]).

1976Nixon v. Richey, 513 F.2d 430 , 438 n.75 (D.C.

1973“In a probate appeal with a report of the evidence, the equity rule applies that the appeal opens all questions of fact, discretion and law presented by the record.” Culhane v. Foley, 305 Mass. 542, 543 .

1962Such an assignee would be subject to the surety’s rights of subrogation which related back to the date of the bonds. 7 Nevertheless, it held that the surety’s equity and the doctrine of relation back “cannot be used by a subrogee for the purpose of recovering money paid to a creditor without notice, in satisfaction of a just debt, prior to the maturing of any right of subrogation.” Various other cases are consistent with the result in the California Bank case, 129 F. 2d 751 , although some of these depend in part on the provisions of the Assignment of Claims Act.

1942In Foster v. The Richard Busteed, 100 Mass. 409, 412 , which was a petition to enforce liens for labor upon a vessel and therefore partook of the nature of a suit in equity, it was held that the court “ought to apply the equity of the rule authorized” by the statute, although the former proceedings had not been discontinued but had been heard and dismissed.

1936See Blake v. Pegram, 101 Mass. 592, 598 ; Barrett v. Briry, 256 Mass. 45 ; Coulson v. Seeley, 277 Mass. 559, 563 .

1936See Blake v. Pegram, 101 Mass. 592, 598 ; Barrett v. Briry, 256 Mass. 45 ; Coulson v. Seeley, 277 Mass. 559, 563 .

1936The equity rule declared in Wyness v. Crowley, 292 Mass. 461 , has no relevancy to these facts.