City of Somerville

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

City of Somerville

231 N.E.2d 574, 353 Mass. 755, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 1004

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 231 N.E.2d 574 (City of Somerville) 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 Somerville, 231 N.E.2d 574, 353 Mass. 755, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 1004 (Mass. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a petition in the county court to establish the truth of exceptions alleged to have been taken by the defendants in the case of Ander v. Somerville & another in the Superior Court. Melnick, petitioner, 324 Mass. 524, 527, G. L. c. 231, § 117. The judge of the Superior Court disallowed the bill of exceptions as not conformable to the truth, and as not set forth in summary form as required by G. L. c. 231, § 113. The single justice entered an order dismissing the petition. The petitioners excepted to that order. The single justice found that the bill is seventy-six pages in length; that all but five pages consist of questions and answers, immaterial colloquy, and frivolous evidential exceptions; and that it did not approach compliance with the statutory requirement of narrative form. Graustein, petitioner, 305 Mass. 568, 569. Rines, petitioner, 331 Mass. 714, 719. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fitchburg Gas & Elec. Co. 334 Mass. 587, 593. He then concluded, among other things, that “the bill was in grossly improper form and properly disallowed as such.” This ruling was obviously correct.

Exception to the order dismissing the petition overruled.

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

This is a petition in the county court to establish the truth of exceptions alleged to have been taken by the defendants in the case of Ander v. Somerville & another in the Superior Court. Melnick, petitioner, 324 Mass. 524, 527, G. L. c. 231, § 117. The judge of the Superior Court disallowed the bill of exceptions as not conformable to the truth, and as not set forth in summary form as required by G. L. c. 231, § 113. The single justice entered an order dismissing the petition. The petitioners excepted to that order. The single justice found that the bill is seventy-six pages in length; that all but five pages consist of questions and answers, immaterial colloquy, and frivolous evidential exceptions; and that it did not approach compliance with the statutory requirement of narrative form. Graustein, petitioner, 305 Mass. 568, 569. Rines, petitioner, 331 Mass. 714, 719. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fitchburg Gas & Elec. Co. 334 Mass. 587, 593. He then concluded, among other things, that “the bill was in grossly improper form and properly disallowed as such.” This ruling was obviously correct.

Exception to the order dismissing the petition overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 N.E.2d 574, 353 Mass. 755, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-somerville-mass-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack