Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 138 (2026)

Amendment of pleadings; notice and hearing requisite to bind certain persons; appeal

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Section 138. No subsequent attaching creditor or purchaser of property attached, other than parties to the record, shall be bound by an amendment of the pleadings which substantially affects his rights unless he has had due notice of the motion for leave to amend and unless he has had an opportunity to be heard thereon. Such persons shall also have the right of appeal.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases, 1922–1974 · leading case: Wadsworth v. Boston Gas Co., 223 N.E.2d 807 (Mass. 1967).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wadsworth v. Boston Gas Co., 223 N.E.2d 807 (Mass. 1967). “G. L. c. 231, § 138. Bowen v. Fairfield, 260 Mass.”

Eaton v. Walker, 244 Mass. 23 (Mass. 1923). “*29 The allowance of the amendment, assuming that it brought in an entirely new party defendant in place of the one first named, was within the power of the court provided it was found by the court, as it must have been in order to allow the amendment, G.”

Savage v. Welch, 246 Mass. 170 (Mass. 1923). “G. L. c. 231, § 138. Tucker v. White, 5 Allen, 322 .”

Massachusetts Gasoline & Oil Co. v. Go-Gas Co., 166 N.E. 563 (Mass. 1929). “G. L. c. 231, § 138. Herlihy v. Little, 200 Mass.”

Weinstein v. Miller, 146 N.E. 902 (Mass. 1925). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff contends that the appeal is not before us; that there could be no appeal from a final decree entered in accordance with a rescript of the full court, and that the appeal from the interlocutory decree does not bring the case to this court.”

Bowen v. Fairfield, 157 N.E. 39 (Mass. 1927). “231, § 138, which provides that the allowance by the court of an amendment shall be conclusive evidence of the identity of the cause of action, is not unlimited in its scope; it is not applicable in a case like the present, where it plainly appears from the record as matter of…”

L. L. Cohen & Co. v. Dir. Gen. of Railroads, 142 N.E. 75 (Mass. 1924). “G. L. c. 231, § 138. In view of the Act of March 3, 1923, (U.”

Potter v. John Bean Div. of Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 182 N.E.2d 834 (Mass. 1962). “23, 29 , is pertinent here: “The allowance of the amendment, assuming that it brought in an entirely new party defendant in place of the one first named, was within the power of the court provided it was found by the court, as it must have been in order to allow the amendment,…”

Abbott Equip. Co. v. Flodstrom, 37 Mass. App. Dec. 90 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1967). “G.L. c. 231, § 138; Schertzer v. Somerville, 345 Mass.”

Patch v. Robbins, 159 N.E. 532 (Mass. 1928). · cites it 2× “It is expressly found by the trial judge that the counts in the amendments “related to the same transaction as the one alleged in the original declaration but set up additional representations of fact made by the defendant, particularly by means of certain printed circulars, and…”

Mills v. Dir. Gen. of Railroads, 242 Mass. 255 (Mass. 1922). “And G. L. c. 231, § 138, expressly states.“The cause of action shall be considered to be the same for which the action was brought, if the court finds it to be the cause of action relied on by the plaintiff when the action was *259 commenced, however the same may be…”

Donovan v. Risi, 38 Mass. App. Dec. 109 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1967). · cites it 4× “See also G.L. c. 231, § 138. The principles referred to were applied in a case in which a new defendant was added by amendment.”

Show all 15 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.