[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________


          No. 97-1082

                          LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                            CATERINA A. ROSENTHAL, ET AL.,

                               Defendants, Appellants.

                             ___________________________


                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                             ___________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________

                            and Lagueux*, District Judge.
                                          ______________

                             ___________________________

               Evan  T. Lawson,  with whom  J. Mark  Dickison and  Lawson &
               _______________              _________________      ________
          Weitzen, LLP were on brief, for appellants.
          ____________
               Michael J. Keefe,  with whom James E.  Harvey, Jr., O'Malley
               ________________             _____________________  ________
          and Harvey, Kenneth A. Latronico, and Latronico & Whitestone were
          __________  ____________________      ______________________
          on brief, for appellee.

                              _________________________

                                    July 18, 1997
                              _________________________

          _______________
          *Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
















                    Per Curiam.  We have reviewed the record on appeal with
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          care,  read the parties'  briefs, and entertained  oral argument.

          We find that the district court's order granting equitable relief

          pendente lite is grounded on substantial evidence  in the record,
          ________ ____

          meets  the requirements  we have  laid down  for the  granting of

          preliminary  injunctive  relief, see,  e.g.,  Narragansett Indian
                                           ___   ____   ___________________

          Tribe v. Guilbert,  934 F.2d 4, 5  (1st Cir. 1991), and  does not
          _____    ________

          appear  to  represent  an unreasonable  application  of pertinent

          legal principles.   Consequently, we summarily affirm  the order.

          The  appellants may,  of course,  raise their  factual and  legal

          arguments anew at the trial on the merits.





                    Affirmed.
                    Affirmed.
                    ________


























                                          2