City of Boston v. Robbins

116 Mass. 313, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 96
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 24, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 116 Mass. 313 (City of Boston v. Robbins) 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
City of Boston v. Robbins, 116 Mass. 313, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 96 (Mass. 1874).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

A petition for a review j like a motion for a new trial, is addressed to the discretion of the presiding judge. His rulings upon specific points of law raised at the hearing upon the [315]*315petition, such as the power to allow an amendment, or the competency of evidence, may be revised on exceptions. Davenport v. Holland, 2 Cush. 1. Gray v. Moore, 7 Gray, 215. Richardson v. Lloyd, 99 Mass. 475. But if upon a petition in due form, and competent evidence, the judge is of opinion that the petitioner has a substantia] defence to the action upon the merits, which by accident and mistake, and without fault on his part, he has had no opportunity of presenting to the court and jury, it is within the discretion of the judge to grant a review, without passing in advance upon the questions of law or fact which may be involved in the trial of the case; and to the exercise of his discretion in this respect no exception lies. Brewer v. Holmes, 1 Met. 288, 291. Hutchinson v. Gurley, 8 Allen, 23.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Hendrick v. West Roxbury Co-operative Bank
92 N.E.2d 238 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
City of Quincy v. Brooks-Skinner, Inc.
91 N.E.2d 206 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Manzi v. Carlson
180 N.E. 134 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Silverstein v. Daniel Russell Boiler Works, Inc.
167 N.E. 676 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Burt v. Hodsdon
136 N.E. 108 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Marsch v. Southern New England Railroad
126 N.E. 519 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Hunt v. Simester
112 N.E. 76 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Linehan v. Linehan
111 N.E. 901 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
McKay v. Kean
46 N.E. 120 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Scituate Water Co. v. Simmons
45 N.E. 750 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Stillman v. Whittemore
42 N.E. 1126 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
Soper v. Manning
33 N.E. 516 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)
Sylvester v. Hubley
32 N.E. 166 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Inhabitants of Wellesley v. Washburn
31 N.E. 8 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Nichols v. Nichols
136 Mass. 256 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Sherman v. Ward
73 Me. 29 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1881)
Dearborn v. Mathes
128 Mass. 194 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Todd v. Barton
117 Mass. 291 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 Mass. 313, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-boston-v-robbins-mass-1874.