Handrahan v. North Main Street Garage, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Handrahan v. North Main Street Garage, Inc.

46 N.E.2d 12, 312 Mass. 699, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 915

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 46 N.E.2d 12 (Handrahan v. North Main Street Garage, Inc.) 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

Handrahan v. North Main Street Garage, Inc., 46 N.E.2d 12, 312 Mass. 699, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 915 (Mass. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff seeks in this action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by him when riding in a side car of a motor cycle by reason of the alleged negligent operation of the motor cycle by the defendant, its agents or servants. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. It would serve no useful purpose to recite the evidence set forth in the bill of exceptions, or to decide whether this evidence warranted a verdict for the plaintiff, for in no event can the exceptions be sustained. Even if, as we do not decide, this evidence did not warrant such a verdict, the exceptions cannot be sustained, for the bill of exceptions does not show by direct statement or by reasonable implication that all the material evidence is set forth therein. York v. Barstow, 175 Mass. 167, 169. Savage v. Collins, 211 Mass. 472. McKin v. Siegel, 256 Mass. 269. Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 259 Mass. 388, 391. Compare Crowninshield v. Broughton, 239 Mass. 17, 18; Stone v. Sullivan, 300 Mass. 450, 452.

The case was submitted on briefs.

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

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff seeks in this action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by him when riding in a side car of a motor cycle by reason of the alleged negligent operation of the motor cycle by the defendant, its agents or servants. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. It would serve no useful purpose to recite the evidence set forth in the bill of exceptions, or to decide whether this evidence warranted a verdict for the plaintiff, for in no event can the exceptions be sustained. Even if, as we do not decide, this evidence did not warrant such a verdict, the exceptions cannot be sustained, for the bill of exceptions does not show by direct statement or by reasonable implication that all the material evidence is set forth therein. York v. Barstow, 175 Mass. 167, 169. Savage v. Collins, 211 Mass. 472. McKin v. Siegel, 256 Mass. 269. Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 259 Mass. 388, 391. Compare Crowninshield v. Broughton, 239 Mass. 17, 18; Stone v. Sullivan, 300 Mass. 450, 452.

The case was submitted on briefs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 N.E.2d 12, 312 Mass. 699, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handrahan-v-north-main-street-garage-inc-mass-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack