Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Heggie Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Heggie Corp.

122 N.E.2d 367, 331 Mass. 761, 1954 Mass. LEXIS 601

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 2, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 122 N.E.2d 367 (Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Heggie Corp.) 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

Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Heggie Corp., 122 N.E.2d 367, 331 Mass. 761, 1954 Mass. LEXIS 601 (Mass. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. These two actions for damage by fire and smoke to the plaintiff's [762]*762building were tried together. In the first action there are two counts in tort and one in contract. The tort counts against the defendant Heggie Corporation and the defendant Rutledge, respectively, are for negligence in removing a steel storage tank from the basement. The contract count is for breach of contract by Heggie Corporation in the same operation. The second action is in tort against the defendant Harnum for negligence in removing the tank. There were verdicts for the defendants. The plaintiff’s only exception in each case is to the denial of its motion for a new trial which was based on the grounds that the verdicts respectively were against the law, against the evidence, and against the weight of the evidence. In the denial of the motions there was no abuse of discretion, much less an abuse of discretion amounting to error of law. These are not among those exceedingly rare instances where the judge’s action can be disturbed. Bresnahan v. Proman, 312 Mass. 97,101-102. Hartmann v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 323 Mass. 56, 59-61. Moran v. Pieroni, Inc. 326 Mass. 516-517. Daddario v. Gloucester, 329 Mass. 297, 301.

Harold J. Field & Frank P. Hurley, for the plaintiff. Charles W. O’Brien, for the defendant Heggie Corporation. Rupert L. Mapplebeck, for the defendants Harnum and another.

The cases were submitted on briefs.

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

Exceptions overruled. These two actions for damage by fire and smoke to the plaintiff's [762]*762building were tried together. In the first action there are two counts in tort and one in contract. The tort counts against the defendant Heggie Corporation and the defendant Rutledge, respectively, are for negligence in removing a steel storage tank from the basement. The contract count is for breach of contract by Heggie Corporation in the same operation. The second action is in tort against the defendant Harnum for negligence in removing the tank. There were verdicts for the defendants. The plaintiff’s only exception in each case is to the denial of its motion for a new trial which was based on the grounds that the verdicts respectively were against the law, against the evidence, and against the weight of the evidence. In the denial of the motions there was no abuse of discretion, much less an abuse of discretion amounting to error of law. These are not among those exceedingly rare instances where the judge’s action can be disturbed. Bresnahan v. Proman, 312 Mass. 97,101-102. Hartmann v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 323 Mass. 56, 59-61. Moran v. Pieroni, Inc. 326 Mass. 516-517. Daddario v. Gloucester, 329 Mass. 297, 301.

Harold J. Field & Frank P. Hurley, for the plaintiff. Charles W. O’Brien, for the defendant Heggie Corporation. Rupert L. Mapplebeck, for the defendants Harnum and another.

The cases were submitted on briefs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 N.E.2d 367, 331 Mass. 761, 1954 Mass. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boston-safe-deposit-trust-co-v-heggie-corp-mass-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack