Holt v. Roberts

56 N.E. 702, 175 Mass. 558, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 824
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 12, 1900·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Holmes, C. J.

These are two petitions under St. 1895, c. 234, to vacate judgments of the Superior Court in replevin for a return and damages, rendered upon nonsuits. The petitions were denied on hearing in the Superior Court, and' the petitioner appealed. Nothing appears on the record beyond these bare facts. The petitions allege, to be sure, that the damages recovered are the value of the chattels ordered to be returned, and that thus she is charged twice for the same things. We are asked to look at a document which purports to be the charge to the jury who assessed the damages, and which, it is said, supports the allegation. But the document is no part of the record and cannot be considered by us. Moreover, it appears by the certificate of the justice who denied the petition's that the charge was before him at the hearing. We cannot know what explanations or further facts were proved, and of course cannot say that his decision not to retry the cases must have been wrong. Cobb v. Hale, 172 Mass. 387.

Petitions denied and judgments affirmed.

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

Holt v. Roberts, 56 N.E. 702, 175 Mass. 558, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 824 (Mass. 1900).

56 N.E. 702 (Holt v. Roberts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mergupis v. Hackett
117 N.E.2d 154 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1954)
Boston Elevated Railway Co. v. Leighr
135 N.E. 880 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)