Emsheimer

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Emsheimer

227 N.E.2d 744, 352 Mass. 778, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 964

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 2, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 227 N.E.2d 744 (Emsheimer) 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

Emsheimer, 227 N.E.2d 744, 352 Mass. 778, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 964 (Mass. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

This is a petition to establish the truth of exceptions set forth in the second edition of a so called “Plaintiff’s Amended Substitute Bill of Exceptions.” G. L. c. 231, § 117 (as amended through St. 1960, c. 207, § 4). The petitioner’s right is limited to the bill of exceptions as originally filed with any amendments allowed by the trial judge. Graustein, petitioner, 304 Mass. 679. It is apparent from the petition that the bill included in it is not the one originally filed, and that the so called “amended substitute bill of exceptions” was never allowed as an amendment to it. No copy of the original bill is contained in the petition. In disallowing the exceptions the trial judge stated that five bills had been presented, the last four after suggestions from him. Upon his findings, which have the effect of prima facie evidence, Maguire, petitioner, 340 Mass. 12, 14, and upon the commissioner’s report, which confirms and does not rebut that evidence, there was no compliance with the requirement of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 113, that “exceptions shall be reduced to writing in a summary manner.” This is a condition precedent to allowance. Graustein, petitioner, 305 Mass. 568, 569. The single justice rightly dismissed the petition.

Exceptions overruled.

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

This is a petition to establish the truth of exceptions set forth in the second edition of a so called “Plaintiff’s Amended Substitute Bill of Exceptions.” G. L. c. 231, § 117 (as amended through St. 1960, c. 207, § 4). The petitioner’s right is limited to the bill of exceptions as originally filed with any amendments allowed by the trial judge. Graustein, petitioner, 304 Mass. 679. It is apparent from the petition that the bill included in it is not the one originally filed, and that the so called “amended substitute bill of exceptions” was never allowed as an amendment to it. No copy of the original bill is contained in the petition. In disallowing the exceptions the trial judge stated that five bills had been presented, the last four after suggestions from him. Upon his findings, which have the effect of prima facie evidence, Maguire, petitioner, 340 Mass. 12, 14, and upon the commissioner’s report, which confirms and does not rebut that evidence, there was no compliance with the requirement of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 113, that “exceptions shall be reduced to writing in a summary manner.” This is a condition precedent to allowance. Graustein, petitioner, 305 Mass. 568, 569. The single justice rightly dismissed the petition.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 N.E.2d 744, 352 Mass. 778, 1967 Mass. LEXIS 964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emsheimer-mass-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack