Duff v. St. Onge

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Duff v. St. Onge

198 N.E.2d 634, 347 Mass. 774

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 1, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 198 N.E.2d 634 (Duff v. St. Onge) 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

Duff v. St. Onge, 198 N.E.2d 634, 347 Mass. 774 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Interlocutory decree confirming master’s report affirmed. Final decree affirmed with costs of appeal. The defendant was for many years counsel for the plaintiffs. They brought this bill seeking an accounting “of all the money, affairs and transactions had between the defendant and the plaintiffs.” The master found that the defendant over the years fully accounted for all of the plaintiffs’ funds handled by him and did not profit improperly from any transaction in which he represented them. The plaintiffs appealed from the allowance of the motion to confirm the master’s report, the interlocutory decree confirming it, and the final decree dismissing the bill. There was no error. The plaintiffs did not request a report of the evidence. Their exceptions to the master’s report are worthless. Minot v. Minot, 319 Mass. 253, 259. United Auto Supply Co. Inc. v. Amaro, 346 Mass. 625, 627.

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

Interlocutory decree confirming master’s report affirmed. Final decree affirmed with costs of appeal. The defendant was for many years counsel for the plaintiffs. They brought this bill seeking an accounting “of all the money, affairs and transactions had between the defendant and the plaintiffs.” The master found that the defendant over the years fully accounted for all of the plaintiffs’ funds handled by him and did not profit improperly from any transaction in which he represented them. The plaintiffs appealed from the allowance of the motion to confirm the master’s report, the interlocutory decree confirming it, and the final decree dismissing the bill. There was no error. The plaintiffs did not request a report of the evidence. Their exceptions to the master’s report are worthless. Minot v. Minot, 319 Mass. 253, 259. United Auto Supply Co. Inc. v. Amaro, 346 Mass. 625, 627.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.E.2d 634, 347 Mass. 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duff-v-st-onge-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack