B. F. Construction Co. v. Holbrook

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

B. F. Construction Co. v. Holbrook

29 N.E.2d 190, 301 Mass. 613, 1938 Mass. LEXIS 1130

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 16, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 29 N.E.2d 190 (B. F. Construction Co. v. Holbrook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

B. F. Construction Co. v. Holbrook, 29 N.E.2d 190, 301 Mass. 613, 1938 Mass. LEXIS 1130 (Mass. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. There is no reason to doubt the truth of the statement of the trial judge with respect to the improper letter sent to him by the attorneys for the defendant that “the letter referred to in no way affected the decision in the case, its contents being given no consideration by the judge and the matter referred to in the letter not entering into the ground of the decision.” In these circumstances no prejudice to the plaintiff is shown, and there was no abuse of discretion or other error of law in refusing to grant a new trial. See Crosby v. Blanchard, 7 Allen, 385, 387; Newman v. Newman, 211 Mass. 508, 509; Manning v. Woodlawn Cemetery Corp. 245 Mass. 250, 252-253; Jameson v. Hayes, 250 Mass. 302, 308; Nicoli v. Berglund, 293 Mass. 426, 430-431. Munde v. Lambie, 125 Mass. 367, and cases therein cited, relied on by the plaintiff, are distinguishable.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Exceptions overruled. There is no reason to doubt the truth of the statement of the trial judge with respect to the improper letter sent to him by the attorneys for the defendant that “the letter referred to in no way affected the decision in the case, its contents being given no consideration by the judge and the matter referred to in the letter not entering into the ground of the decision.” In these circumstances no prejudice to the plaintiff is shown, and there was no abuse of discretion or other error of law in refusing to grant a new trial. See Crosby v. Blanchard, 7 Allen, 385, 387; Newman v. Newman, 211 Mass. 508, 509; Manning v. Woodlawn Cemetery Corp. 245 Mass. 250, 252-253; Jameson v. Hayes, 250 Mass. 302, 308; Nicoli v. Berglund, 293 Mass. 426, 430-431. Munde v. Lambie, 125 Mass. 367, and cases therein cited, relied on by the plaintiff, are distinguishable.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.E.2d 190, 301 Mass. 613, 1938 Mass. LEXIS 1130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-f-construction-co-v-holbrook-mass-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack