F. P. Battery Research Corp. v. Major Machine Corp.

342 Mass. 780
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 1, 1961
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 342 Mass. 780 (F. P. Battery Research Corp. v. Major Machine Corp.) 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
F. P. Battery Research Corp. v. Major Machine Corp., 342 Mass. 780 (Mass. 1961).

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. In this action of contract, originally in several counts which were reduced by waiver after trial without jury to one count based on an oral contract, the defendant excepts to (1) the dispositions of requests for rulings, (2) rulings on evidence, and (3) the denial of a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. A general finding for the plaintiff was based on considerable written and oral evidence which we have examined. It is not a case where the documentary evidence is conclusive. See Meteor Prod. Co. Inc. V. Société d’Electro-Chemie et d’Electro-Métallurgie, 263 Mass. 543, 547-548, and cases cited. On a reasonable view of the evidence, including rational inferences therefrom, the finding for the plaintiff was at least permissible. Bowers v. Hathaway, 337 Mass. 88, 89. (1) The exceptions to rulings fail because they were (a) directed to counts which were waived after the requests were filed, or (b) based on a specific fact expressly not found by the judge, or (c) requests for findings of fact, or (d) concerned with the legal effect of a portion of the evidence, or (e) not argued. (2) We perceive no error in the rulings on evidence and especially on matters relating to the count on which recovery was based. (3) The denial of the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was not erroneous. The judge’s discretion was soundly exercised for the reasons stated in Sharpe, petitioner, 322 Mass. 441, 444, and DeLuca v. Boston Elev. Ry. 312 Mass. 495, 497, and eases cited.

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

Related

Woodland Estates v. BLDG. INSPECTOR OF METHUEN
358 N.E.2d 468 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1976)
Boston Edison Co. v. Forbes
343 N.E.2d 429 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1976)
John J. Williams Insurance Agency Inc. v. Putignano
36 Mass. App. Dec. 135 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1967)
Balise Motor Sales Co. v. Mason
36 Mass. App. Dec. 185 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1967)
Reasonable Homes Corp. v. Goodman
180 N.E.2d 818 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
342 Mass. 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-p-battery-research-corp-v-major-machine-corp-mass-1961.