Edgecomb v. Edmonston

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Edgecomb v. Edmonston

155 N.E. 599, 258 Mass. 568, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1120

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 4, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 155 N.E. 599 (Edgecomb v. Edmonston) 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

Edgecomb v. Edmonston, 155 N.E. 599, 258 Mass. 568, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1120 (Mass. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Rugg, C.J.

This suit in equity came before this court in 257 Mass. 12, on report by the trial judge on his finding and order for final decree. In accordance with the opinion then rendered, rescript was sent of this tenor: “Decree to be entered restraining the defendant from engaging in any line of business similar to the plaintiff’s within the city of Boston, and from soliciting the plaintiff’s customers within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a period of five years from April 16, 1923.” Thereafter, without amendment of the pleadings, the case came on to be heard upon the plaintiff’s motion for final decree after rescript. The defendant offered evidence to show that, subsequent to the hearing on the merits and the report to this court, the defendant submitted a bid to the government of the United States for doing stenographic work in the Federal courts in Boston in cases to which the United States was a party, and that, while such bid had not been accepted, he has been and now is doing stenographic work covered by such bid for the United States government in the Post Office building in Boston. This evidence was excluded, objections by the defendant to the final decree based thereon were not entertained, and rulings requested by the defendant in view thereof were denied. The defendant’s appeal from a final decree entered in accordance with the rescript brings the case here again.

Where no new issue after rescript is raised on the record, the only function of the trial court is to enter a final decree [570]*570in implicit accordance with the mandate of the rescript. That principle is applicable to the case at bar. The proffered evidence was excluded rightly. Attorney General v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 201 Mass. 371. Day v. Mills, 213 Mass. 585, 587. Boston, petitioner, 223 Mass. 36. King v. Connors, 223 Mass. 305.

It becomes unnecessary to consider other questions argued.

Decree affirmed.

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

Rugg, C.J.

This suit in equity came before this court in 257 Mass. 12, on report by the trial judge on his finding and order for final decree. In accordance with the opinion then rendered, rescript was sent of this tenor: “Decree to be entered restraining the defendant from engaging in any line of business similar to the plaintiff’s within the city of Boston, and from soliciting the plaintiff’s customers within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a period of five years from April 16, 1923.” Thereafter, without amendment of the pleadings, the case came on to be heard upon the plaintiff’s motion for final decree after rescript. The defendant offered evidence to show that, subsequent to the hearing on the merits and the report to this court, the defendant submitted a bid to the government of the United States for doing stenographic work in the Federal courts in Boston in cases to which the United States was a party, and that, while such bid had not been accepted, he has been and now is doing stenographic work covered by such bid for the United States government in the Post Office building in Boston. This evidence was excluded, objections by the defendant to the final decree based thereon were not entertained, and rulings requested by the defendant in view thereof were denied. The defendant’s appeal from a final decree entered in accordance with the rescript brings the case here again.

Where no new issue after rescript is raised on the record, the only function of the trial court is to enter a final decree [570]*570in implicit accordance with the mandate of the rescript. That principle is applicable to the case at bar. The proffered evidence was excluded rightly. Attorney General v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 201 Mass. 371. Day v. Mills, 213 Mass. 585, 587. Boston, petitioner, 223 Mass. 36. King v. Connors, 223 Mass. 305.

It becomes unnecessary to consider other questions argued.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.E. 599, 258 Mass. 568, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edgecomb-v-edmonston-mass-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack