Koch

225 Mass. 148
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 23, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 225 Mass. 148 (Koch) 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
Koch, 225 Mass. 148 (Mass. 1916).

Opinion

Hugo, C. J.

This is a petition to establish exceptions. The respondent, the plaintiff in the original action, moves that the petition be dismissed on the ground that it is apparent upon a cursory examination of the exceptions as filed that no substantial question of law is involved. The action is in contract. It was referred to an auditor with an agreement by the parties that his findings of fact should be final. The auditor’s report was in favor of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved that the report be confirmed and that judgment be rendered against the defendants. The defendants, the present petitioners, moved that the report be recommitted to the auditor because he did not show that an objection had been made to the introduction in evidence of a certain letter, whereas in truth such objection had been made, and that the auditor, although requested to make a statement of such ruling in his report, had not done so. St. 1914, c. 576, § 2, amending R. L. c. 165, § 55. The judge denied the motion of the defendants and granted that of the plaintiff. To this action an exception was taken, and this is the only exception alleged in the bill.

This exception raises no question of law. The certificate of the Superior Court judge in disallowing the exceptions, the truth of which in this respect is not disputed by the petitioners, shows that the facts stated in their motion were not verified by affidavit, were not supported by any evidence and were not admitted by the opposing party. Under these circumstances it is too clear for discussion that the granting of the motion to recommit the case to the auditor rested wholly in the discretion of the judge. Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co. 212 Mass. 352, 372.

Since no substantial question of law is set forth in the bill of exceptions as filed and disallowed, the parties and the Commonwealth ought not to be put to the expense of a hearing on the petition to establish the exceptions, but the petition should be dismissed. Bishop, petitioner, 208 Mass. 405, 407.

So ordered.

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

Related

Domenic T. Scano
153 N.E.2d 642 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
Feuerstein v. Bluestein
2 Mass. App. Div. 368 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1937)
Morin v. Clark
6 N.E.2d 830 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Coughlin v. McGrath
4 N.E.2d 319 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Donovan v. Donovan
200 N.E. 884 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Russo v. Thompson
200 N.E. 570 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Carbonneau v. Cavanaugh
194 N.E. 724 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Epstein v. Epstein
191 N.E. 418 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Walsh v. Cornwell
172 N.E. 855 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Lunn & Sweet Co. v. Wolfman
167 N.E. 641 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Commonwealth v. Kossowan
265 Mass. 436 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Bullock
254 Mass. 14 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Reynolds
149 N.E. 154 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Barnett
133 N.E. 111 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 Mass. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koch-mass-1916.