Ledgehill Homes, Inc. v. Chaitman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Ledgehill Homes, Inc. v. Chaitman

202 N.E.2d 920, 348 Mass. 777

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 202 N.E.2d 920 (Ledgehill Homes, Inc. v. Chaitman) 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

Ledgehill Homes, Inc. v. Chaitman, 202 N.E.2d 920, 348 Mass. 777 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. In this action of tort for abuse of process the judge found for the defendant. The plaintiff presented seventeen requests for findings and rulings, all of which were granted. The sole question arises from the plaintiff's exception to the denial of its motion for a new trial. The grounds of the motion are that the general finding for the defendant is: (1) inconsistent with the judge’s rulings and findings, (2) against the weight of the evidence, and (3) unfair and unjust. There was no error. The judge could have found that, although the attachment was excessive, the process was not “used to accomplish some ulterior purpose for which it was not designed or intended, or which was not . . . [its] legitimate purpose.” Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236. And he could likewise have found, despite the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, that damage, an essential element of the tort, had not been established. See Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 427.

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

Exceptions overruled. In this action of tort for abuse of process the judge found for the defendant. The plaintiff presented seventeen requests for findings and rulings, all of which were granted. The sole question arises from the plaintiff's exception to the denial of its motion for a new trial. The grounds of the motion are that the general finding for the defendant is: (1) inconsistent with the judge’s rulings and findings, (2) against the weight of the evidence, and (3) unfair and unjust. There was no error. The judge could have found that, although the attachment was excessive, the process was not “used to accomplish some ulterior purpose for which it was not designed or intended, or which was not . . . [its] legitimate purpose.” Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 236. And he could likewise have found, despite the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, that damage, an essential element of the tort, had not been established. See Quaranto v. Silverman, 345 Mass. 423, 427.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 N.E.2d 920, 348 Mass. 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ledgehill-homes-inc-v-chaitman-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack