Boyle v. Cambridge Gas Light Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Boyle v. Cambridge Gas Light Co.

138 N.E.2d 637, 335 Mass. 761

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 4, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 138 N.E.2d 637 (Boyle v. Cambridge Gas Light Co.) 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

Boyle v. Cambridge Gas Light Co., 138 N.E.2d 637, 335 Mass. 761 (Mass. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The defendant’s exceptions were sustained in each of these three cases for the reason that there was no evidence of negligence, and rescripts were sent down on January 19, 1954, ordering the entry of judgments for the defendant. 331 Mass. 56. The plaintiffs contend that during the trial they saved exceptions to the exclusion of evidence which, if admitted, would have shown negligence upon the part of the defendant. The plaintiffs, however, never perfected their exceptions. See McGonigle, petitioner, 317 Mass. 262. The merits of these exceptions have never been before this court. They are not now before us. The plaintiffs, subsequent to the rescripts, filed motions for new trial based upon the evidence which had been excluded at the original trial. The only issue now presented is the correctness of the denial of these motions There was no error. Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482. Vallavanti v. Armour & Co. 264 Mass. 337, 311. Hartmann v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 323 Mass. 56, 60.

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

Exceptions overruled. The defendant’s exceptions were sustained in each of these three cases for the reason that there was no evidence of negligence, and rescripts were sent down on January 19, 1954, ordering the entry of judgments for the defendant. 331 Mass. 56. The plaintiffs contend that during the trial they saved exceptions to the exclusion of evidence which, if admitted, would have shown negligence upon the part of the defendant. The plaintiffs, however, never perfected their exceptions. See McGonigle, petitioner, 317 Mass. 262. The merits of these exceptions have never been before this court. They are not now before us. The plaintiffs, subsequent to the rescripts, filed motions for new trial based upon the evidence which had been excluded at the original trial. The only issue now presented is the correctness of the denial of these motions There was no error. Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482. Vallavanti v. Armour & Co. 264 Mass. 337, 311. Hartmann v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp. 323 Mass. 56, 60.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.E.2d 637, 335 Mass. 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyle-v-cambridge-gas-light-co-mass-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack