Chadwick v. Desroches

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Chadwick v. Desroches

130 N.E.2d 592, 333 Mass. 768, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 758

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 130 N.E.2d 592 (Chadwick v. Desroches) 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

Chadwick v. Desroches, 130 N.E.2d 592, 333 Mass. 768, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 758 (Mass. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dismissing report affirmed. This is an action of tort in which the plaintiff seeks to recover for property damage alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in colliding with the plaintiff’s automobile from behind. Upon undisputed evidence the judge found for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed a report to the Appellate Division which was dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed. The sole question argued was the failure of the judge to act upon certain requests filed by the defendant. The plaintiff filed [769]*769no requests and claimed no exceptions. Since the judge took no action upon the defendant’s requests, they must be treated as having been denied, Mitchell v. Silverstein, 323 Mass. 239, 240-241. Alves v. Boulanger, 329 Mass. 766. The denial of the defendant’s requests in no way harmed the plaintiff. Their denial was not inconsistent with a general finding for the defendant. Godfrey v. Caswell, 321 Mass. 161, 162. Apparently the only grievance the plaintiff has is that the judge made a general finding for the defendant. This presents no question of law and is not reviewable by the Appellate Division. Muir Brothers Co. v. Sawyer Construction Co. 328 Mass. 413, 414-415.

Robert H. Arnold, Paul J. Donaher & Harry W. Sloper, Jr., for the plaintiff, submitted a brief. No argument nor brief for the defendant.

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

Order dismissing report affirmed. This is an action of tort in which the plaintiff seeks to recover for property damage alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in colliding with the plaintiff’s automobile from behind. Upon undisputed evidence the judge found for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed a report to the Appellate Division which was dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed. The sole question argued was the failure of the judge to act upon certain requests filed by the defendant. The plaintiff filed [769]*769no requests and claimed no exceptions. Since the judge took no action upon the defendant’s requests, they must be treated as having been denied, Mitchell v. Silverstein, 323 Mass. 239, 240-241. Alves v. Boulanger, 329 Mass. 766. The denial of the defendant’s requests in no way harmed the plaintiff. Their denial was not inconsistent with a general finding for the defendant. Godfrey v. Caswell, 321 Mass. 161, 162. Apparently the only grievance the plaintiff has is that the judge made a general finding for the defendant. This presents no question of law and is not reviewable by the Appellate Division. Muir Brothers Co. v. Sawyer Construction Co. 328 Mass. 413, 414-415.

Robert H. Arnold, Paul J. Donaher & Harry W. Sloper, Jr., for the plaintiff, submitted a brief. No argument nor brief for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 N.E.2d 592, 333 Mass. 768, 1955 Mass. LEXIS 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chadwick-v-desroches-mass-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack