Finger v. De Pietro

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Finger v. De Pietro

322 N.E.2d 88, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 913, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 859

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJanuary 10, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 322 N.E.2d 88 (Finger v. De Pietro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Finger v. De Pietro, 322 N.E.2d 88, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 913, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 859 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

This appeal brings to us the sole question whether the judge erred in allowing the defendant to ask a witness, “ [Did you ever notice] anything to indicate that Mrs. Cignale was not of sound mind?” There was no error. The question called for a factual response as to acts observed and statements heard by the witness and did not, as argued by the plaintiff, seek the witness’s conclusion or opinion concerning Mrs. Cignale’s mental condition. McCoy v. Jordan, 184 Mass. 575, 578 (1904). Gorham [914]*914v. Moor, 197 Mass. 522, 523-524 (1908). Old Colony Trust Co. v. Di Cola, 233 Mass. 119, 125 (1919). See Vieira v. East Taunton St. Ry. 320 Mass. 547, 550-551 (1947). A second issue raised by the plaintiff is not properly before us as it is not based on an exception. Jones v. Bailey, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 41, 44-45 (1973). In any event it is wholly lacking in merit.

Frederic R. Hartstone for the plaintiff. Thomas B. Shea (Jacob I. Brier with him) for the defendant Livia De Pietro.

Decree affirmed.

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

This appeal brings to us the sole question whether the judge erred in allowing the defendant to ask a witness, “ [Did you ever notice] anything to indicate that Mrs. Cignale was not of sound mind?” There was no error. The question called for a factual response as to acts observed and statements heard by the witness and did not, as argued by the plaintiff, seek the witness’s conclusion or opinion concerning Mrs. Cignale’s mental condition. McCoy v. Jordan, 184 Mass. 575, 578 (1904). Gorham [914]*914v. Moor, 197 Mass. 522, 523-524 (1908). Old Colony Trust Co. v. Di Cola, 233 Mass. 119, 125 (1919). See Vieira v. East Taunton St. Ry. 320 Mass. 547, 550-551 (1947). A second issue raised by the plaintiff is not properly before us as it is not based on an exception. Jones v. Bailey, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 41, 44-45 (1973). In any event it is wholly lacking in merit.

Frederic R. Hartstone for the plaintiff. Thomas B. Shea (Jacob I. Brier with him) for the defendant Livia De Pietro.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 N.E.2d 88, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 913, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finger-v-de-pietro-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack