Fuller

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Fuller

219 Mass. 209

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 19, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 219 Mass. 209 (Fuller) 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

Fuller, 219 Mass. 209 (Mass. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Rugg, C. J.

This is a petition to establish the truth of exceptions disallowed by the presiding judge. These facts are admitted: The petitioner prepared his petition in accordance with the statute and verified it by affidavit. Thereafter he added to it an averment as to the date on which notice of the disallowance of his exceptions was received by him, and an averment that within twenty days thereafter he filed the present petition after giving notice of the filing to counsel for the other party. After doing this, he made no supplemental or new affidavit. It is not necessary to determine whether these additional averments were necessary in view of other facts stated in the petition. They were inserted in and made a part of the petition after the affidavit was made and before it was filed. Hence, a part of the petition never was verified by affidavit, although on its face, apart from outside evidence, the oath appeared to apply to the entire petition and all its allegations of facts.

The strictest compliance with all the provisions of the rule as to procedure always has been held essential in cases like the present. Rule 6, for the regulation of practice before this court, requires that the petition must be “verified by affidavit.” This means that the truth of all facts which the petitioner thinks sufficiently material to be in the petition must be supported by oath. It prohibits the insertion of additional averments after the affidavit has been made and without indicating that the affiant does not assume responsibility for their truth. Manifestly such practice as the present record discloses does not accord with the let[211]*211ter or with the spirit of the rule. Tufts v. Newton, 117 Mass. 68. Hadley v. Watson, 143 Mass. 27. Bishop, petitioner, 208 Mass. 405. The reason for this is that such a petition undertakes to control the statement of a judge made under the solemn obligations of his official duty. Justice does not demand an investigation of the subject unless some one is willing to assume the burden of making oath to the truth of all the facts on which action is sought.

Petition dismissed.

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

Rugg, C. J.

This is a petition to establish the truth of exceptions disallowed by the presiding judge. These facts are admitted: The petitioner prepared his petition in accordance with the statute and verified it by affidavit. Thereafter he added to it an averment as to the date on which notice of the disallowance of his exceptions was received by him, and an averment that within twenty days thereafter he filed the present petition after giving notice of the filing to counsel for the other party. After doing this, he made no supplemental or new affidavit. It is not necessary to determine whether these additional averments were necessary in view of other facts stated in the petition. They were inserted in and made a part of the petition after the affidavit was made and before it was filed. Hence, a part of the petition never was verified by affidavit, although on its face, apart from outside evidence, the oath appeared to apply to the entire petition and all its allegations of facts.

The strictest compliance with all the provisions of the rule as to procedure always has been held essential in cases like the present. Rule 6, for the regulation of practice before this court, requires that the petition must be “verified by affidavit.” This means that the truth of all facts which the petitioner thinks sufficiently material to be in the petition must be supported by oath. It prohibits the insertion of additional averments after the affidavit has been made and without indicating that the affiant does not assume responsibility for their truth. Manifestly such practice as the present record discloses does not accord with the let[211]*211ter or with the spirit of the rule. Tufts v. Newton, 117 Mass. 68. Hadley v. Watson, 143 Mass. 27. Bishop, petitioner, 208 Mass. 405. The reason for this is that such a petition undertakes to control the statement of a judge made under the solemn obligations of his official duty. Justice does not demand an investigation of the subject unless some one is willing to assume the burden of making oath to the truth of all the facts on which action is sought.

Petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 Mass. 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-mass-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack