DeCristafaro v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DeCristafaro v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

33 N.E.2d 971, 304 Mass. 680, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1173

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 27, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 33 N.E.2d 971 (DeCristafaro v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.) 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

DeCristafaro v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 33 N.E.2d 971, 304 Mass. 680, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1173 (Mass. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This action of tort was tried in the Superior Court before a judge sitting without a jury. There was a finding for the defendant. The plaintiff has entered a bill of exceptions in this court. It sets out nine “requests [by the plaintiff] for rulings and findings” with the judge’s action thereon stated. The plaintiff's argument is limited to the third, fourth, sixth and ninth requests. With respect to the fourth request the bill of exceptions states: “The Court found ‘No. The Court did not so find.’ ” With respect to each of the other three requests the bill of exceptions states: “The Court found ‘No.’ ” The bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was saved by the plaintiff to the disposition made by the judge of these requests or to any other action by him. Consequently no question of law is presented to this court for its consideration. Condé Nast Press, Inc. v. Cornhill Publishing Co. 255 Mass. 480, 484. Rule 72 of the Superior Court (1932). But even if exceptions had been saved to the disposition of the rulings in question, they would have to be overruled. The third, sixth and ninth requests called for findings of fact, or rulings of law based upon findings of fact, which findings of fact the judge was not required as matter of law to make on the evidence. The fourth request is predicated upon a finding of fact, which the judge states that he did not make and which he was. not required as matter of law to make on the evidence.

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

Exceptions overruled. This action of tort was tried in the Superior Court before a judge sitting without a jury. There was a finding for the defendant. The plaintiff has entered a bill of exceptions in this court. It sets out nine “requests [by the plaintiff] for rulings and findings” with the judge’s action thereon stated. The plaintiff's argument is limited to the third, fourth, sixth and ninth requests. With respect to the fourth request the bill of exceptions states: “The Court found ‘No. The Court did not so find.’ ” With respect to each of the other three requests the bill of exceptions states: “The Court found ‘No.’ ” The bill of exceptions does not show that any exception was saved by the plaintiff to the disposition made by the judge of these requests or to any other action by him. Consequently no question of law is presented to this court for its consideration. Condé Nast Press, Inc. v. Cornhill Publishing Co. 255 Mass. 480, 484. Rule 72 of the Superior Court (1932). But even if exceptions had been saved to the disposition of the rulings in question, they would have to be overruled. The third, sixth and ninth requests called for findings of fact, or rulings of law based upon findings of fact, which findings of fact the judge was not required as matter of law to make on the evidence. The fourth request is predicated upon a finding of fact, which the judge states that he did not make and which he was. not required as matter of law to make on the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 N.E.2d 971, 304 Mass. 680, 1939 Mass. LEXIS 1173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decristafaro-v-boston-elevated-railway-co-mass-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack