Hallett v. Jordan Marsh Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Hallett v. Jordan Marsh Co.

133 N.E. 191, 240 Mass. 110, 1921 Mass. LEXIS 1170

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1921

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 133 N.E. 191 (Hallett v. Jordan Marsh Co.) 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

Hallett v. Jordan Marsh Co., 133 N.E. 191, 240 Mass. 110, 1921 Mass. LEXIS 1170 (Mass. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Rugg, C. J.

These exceptions relate solely to a motion for a new trial. The grounds alleged are (1) that the verdict was against the evidence, (2) that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, (3) that the verdict, being based on a finding of joint negligence, was on the evidence against the law, and (4) that the plaintiffs, owing to lack of opportunity fully to present evidence in rebuttal refuting evidence unfairly introduced by the defendant affecting the credibility of the female plaintiff respecting vital issues in the case, was deprived of a fair trial.

It is the general rule that motions for new trial are addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court. It is only in exceedingly rare instances that conditions arise where it can be said that there has been an abuse of that discretion. Berggren v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 231 Mass. 173.

The chief ground of complaint by the plaintiffs relates to a ruling of the judge limiting the plaintiffs to five witnesses in rebuttal upon a point materially affecting the verdict. No exception, however, was taken to that ruling. A question of law which might have been saved at the trial on the merits cannot be raised [113]*113as matter of right at a motion for a new trial. The judge in denying the motion for a new trial expressed the opinion that the plaintiffs had a full and fair trial. He stated that the plaintiffs tacitly, if not expressly, assented to the limitation of witnesses in rebuttal. If objection then had been made or exception saved, a different situation might have arisen and the conduct pf the trial judge might have been modified.

There is no fact in this record which shows that there was an unfair trial. There is nothing which indicates an abuse of judicial discretion. The case is covered by the decision in Ryan v. Hickey, ante, 46. The principles illustrated by that decision and in the numerous authorities there collected are decisive against the present plaintiffs. They are thoroughly well settled. It would serve no useful purpose to review at greater length the facts here involved. They do not warrant the establishment of any exception to the general rule.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Rugg, C. J.

These exceptions relate solely to a motion for a new trial. The grounds alleged are (1) that the verdict was against the evidence, (2) that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, (3) that the verdict, being based on a finding of joint negligence, was on the evidence against the law, and (4) that the plaintiffs, owing to lack of opportunity fully to present evidence in rebuttal refuting evidence unfairly introduced by the defendant affecting the credibility of the female plaintiff respecting vital issues in the case, was deprived of a fair trial.

It is the general rule that motions for new trial are addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the court. It is only in exceedingly rare instances that conditions arise where it can be said that there has been an abuse of that discretion. Berggren v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 231 Mass. 173.

The chief ground of complaint by the plaintiffs relates to a ruling of the judge limiting the plaintiffs to five witnesses in rebuttal upon a point materially affecting the verdict. No exception, however, was taken to that ruling. A question of law which might have been saved at the trial on the merits cannot be raised [113]*113as matter of right at a motion for a new trial. The judge in denying the motion for a new trial expressed the opinion that the plaintiffs had a full and fair trial. He stated that the plaintiffs tacitly, if not expressly, assented to the limitation of witnesses in rebuttal. If objection then had been made or exception saved, a different situation might have arisen and the conduct pf the trial judge might have been modified.

There is no fact in this record which shows that there was an unfair trial. There is nothing which indicates an abuse of judicial discretion. The case is covered by the decision in Ryan v. Hickey, ante, 46. The principles illustrated by that decision and in the numerous authorities there collected are decisive against the present plaintiffs. They are thoroughly well settled. It would serve no useful purpose to review at greater length the facts here involved. They do not warrant the establishment of any exception to the general rule.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 N.E. 191, 240 Mass. 110, 1921 Mass. LEXIS 1170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallett-v-jordan-marsh-co-mass-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack