Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 125 (2026)

Appellate court's powers of amendment; additional testimony

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 125. Upon appeal in a civil action the appeals court and supreme judicial court shall have all the powers of amendment of the court below; and whenever objections have been taken to the exclusion of evidence, or where the alleged error arises from the omission at the trial of some fact which, under the circumstances of the case, may subsequently be proved without involving any question for a jury, and without substantial injustice to either party the appellate courts shall have full discretionary authority to cause such further testimony to be taken as it deems necessary, either by oral examination in court, by reference, by affidavit or by deposition, and both courts shall have power to render any judgment and to make any order that ought to have been made upon the whole case.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases, 1923–2001 · leading case: Nagel v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 749 N.E.2d 710 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nagel v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 749 N.E.2d 710 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001). “See G. L. c. 231, § 125. See also Gamache v. Mayor of North Adams, 17 Mass.”

Goss v. Donnell, 161 N.E. 896 (Mass. 1928). · cites it 2× “After the appeal was entered in the full court, Samuel Donnell presented a motion supported by affidavit praying that this court, in accordance with G. L. c. 231, § 125, “cause to be determined and made a matter of record all of the material facts involved in the appeal from the…”

Bucholz v. Green Bros. Co., 172 N.E. 101 (Mass. 1930). “*56 See G. L. c. 231, § 125. The plaintiff is given leave, if so advised within thirty days after the date of the rescript, to file a motion in the Superior Court for appropriate amendments to his declaration so that it may conform to the proof; if such motion is filed and after…”

Pridgen v. Boston Hous. Auth., 308 N.E.2d 467 (Mass. 1974). “In others we have allowed them to be made in this court under the provisions of G. L. c. 231, § 125, giving the court “all the powers of amendment of the court below” in cases before us for appellate review.”

Pizer v. Hunt, 148 N.E. 801 (Mass. 1925). “Amendment to the declaration has frequently been ordered by this court or directly allowed here under G. L. c. 231, § 125, for the same purpose.”

Twombly v. Billerica, 159 N.E. 630 (Mass. 1928). · cites it 2× “If the case should be decided here adversely to the defendants, they could offer the same amendment to the answer in the Superior Court after rescript and before final decree, and under the authority of the decisions already cited it well might be allowed and become the basis of…”

Sodones v. Sodones, 314 N.E.2d 906 (Mass. 1974). “231, § 125A, the judge who originally sat on this case is no longer sitting as a judge of the Probate Court. Furthermore, given the fact that the contempt proceeding was held over two years ago, we do not accept the suggestion of the defendant that this court itself seek…”

Savage v. Welch, 246 Mass. 170 (Mass. 1923). “G. L. c. 231, § 125. It has been urged earnestly in behalf of the defendants that their constitutional rights have been impaired by the *183 allowance of the motion to file the substitute declaration and the entry of judgment.”

Glaser v. Schroeder, 269 Mass. 337 (Mass. 1929). “G. L. c. 231, § 125. Loanes v. Gast, 216 Mass.”

Friedman v. Orient Ins., 180 N.E. 617 (Mass. 1932). “It follows that judgment must be entered for the defendant under G. L. c. 231, § 125. So ordered.”

Honer v. Wisniewski, 720 N.E.2d 38 (Mass. App. Ct. 1999). “7 Exercising our powers *296 under G. L. c. 231, § 125, 8 we order that upon application of either party within thirty days of the rescript, the clerk of the District Court shall issue an execution in the amount of the applicant’s remaining judgment plus postjudgment interest,…”

Weinstein v. Miller, 144 N.E. 387 (Mass. 1924). “The defendant also urges that no damages were suffered by the plaintiffs by reason of the defendant’s alleged failure to furnish more material than the quantity which he supplied, and that the finding of substantial damages was unwarranted. The question of damages was one of…”

Show all 41 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.