De Toma v. Spector

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

De Toma v. Spector

83 N.E.2d 885, 323 Mass. 758, 1949 Mass. LEXIS 516

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 83 N.E.2d 885 (De Toma v. Spector) 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

De Toma v. Spector, 83 N.E.2d 885, 323 Mass. 758, 1949 Mass. LEXIS 516 (Mass. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed with double costs. This is a petition, under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 250, § 22, for a writ of review to review a judgment obtained in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston by the respondent Spector against the petitioner. Apparently the petition was denied in the Municipal Court, and the petitioner appealed to the Superior Court. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 97. Lynn Gas & Electric Co. v. Creditors National Clearing House, 235 Mass. 114. In the Superior Court the petitioner filed a claim of trial by jury, which was dismissed on motion of the respondent, and the petitioner filed an appeal to this court. Later the petition was denied by the Superior Court, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Nothing is before us except matters of law apparent on the record. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 96. Browne v. Fairhall, 218 Mass. 495. A petition for review is addressed to the discretion of the court. Stillman v. Whittemore, 165 Mass. 234. Robinson v. Lyndonville Creamery Association, 284 Mass. 396. It would be anomalous and unprecedented to submit such a question of discretion to a jury. Not only does no error appear in the action of the Superior Court, but the appeals appear to us frivolous.

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

Judgment affirmed with double costs. This is a petition, under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 250, § 22, for a writ of review to review a judgment obtained in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston by the respondent Spector against the petitioner. Apparently the petition was denied in the Municipal Court, and the petitioner appealed to the Superior Court. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 97. Lynn Gas & Electric Co. v. Creditors National Clearing House, 235 Mass. 114. In the Superior Court the petitioner filed a claim of trial by jury, which was dismissed on motion of the respondent, and the petitioner filed an appeal to this court. Later the petition was denied by the Superior Court, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Nothing is before us except matters of law apparent on the record. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 96. Browne v. Fairhall, 218 Mass. 495. A petition for review is addressed to the discretion of the court. Stillman v. Whittemore, 165 Mass. 234. Robinson v. Lyndonville Creamery Association, 284 Mass. 396. It would be anomalous and unprecedented to submit such a question of discretion to a jury. Not only does no error appear in the action of the Superior Court, but the appeals appear to us frivolous.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 N.E.2d 885, 323 Mass. 758, 1949 Mass. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-toma-v-spector-mass-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack