Home/Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court/Conway v. Murphy

Conway v. Murphy

192 N.E. 149, 287 Mass. 536, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1199
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 12, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 192 N.E. 149 (Conway v. Murphy) 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
Conway v. Murphy, 192 N.E. 149, 287 Mass. 536, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1199 (Mass. 1934).

Opinion

Rugg, C.J.

This is a petition to establish a report respecting a trial in a district court. A finding in favor of the plaintiff was filed on February 25, 1933, and notice thereof was sent. The defendant states in his brief that he received the notice on February 27, 1933. He filed a draft report on March 8, 1933. That report on motion was dismissed by the trial judge. By decision of the Appellate Division the report was dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 27 of the District Courts (1932). So far as here material that rule provides that “written request for a report to the Appellate Division shall be filed with the clerk within five days after notice of the final finding in any cause.”

Promulgation of the rule was within the power conferred by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 218, § 43. The defendant failed to comply with it. Massachusetts Drug Co. v. Bencks, 256 Mass. 535. The filing of the draft report was dependent for its validity upon the precedent filing of a request for report. See Krock v. Consolidated Mines & Power Co. Ltd. 286 Mass. 177. It is not necessary to determine whether the filing of a draft report within the five days limited by the rule would be sufficient because it was not so filed. See Lawrence v. Board of Registration in Medi[538]*538cine, 239 Mass. 424, 427. There is nothing in St. 1933, c. 255, embodying among other matters the substance of the rule, which justifies the conclusion that the rule was not valid before its enactment.

Order of Appellate Division affirmed.

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

Related

Reiman v. Brookline Rent Control Board
1985 Mass. App. Div. 186 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1985)
Whitney v. Medeiros
56 Mass. App. Dec. 112 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1975)
Scraggs v. Hafford
54 Mass. App. Dec. 44 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1974)
Plante v. Millstone Acres, Inc.
48 Mass. App. Dec. 68 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1972)
Langone v. Kelling Nut Co.
39 Mass. App. Dec. 137 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1968)
Allston Supply Co. v. Interstate Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp.
25 Mass. App. Dec. 139 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1962)
Hill v. Lynn-Sign Moulded Plastic Co.
22 Mass. App. Dec. 69 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1961)
Klein v. Chapman
18 Mass. App. Dec. 128 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1960)
Ahern v. Towle
39 N.E.2d 561 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Yakas v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
2 Mass. App. Dec. 31 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1941)
Cullen v. McCarthy
5 Mass. App. Div. 287 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1940)
Neilson v. Malcolm Kenneth Co.
22 N.E.2d 20 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Gangi v. Venice Grocery Co.
2 Mass. App. Div. 15 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Murphy v. Barry, Inc.
3 N.E.2d 214 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Finkelstein v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
1 Mass. App. Div. 146 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 N.E. 149, 287 Mass. 536, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conway-v-murphy-mass-1934.