MacNeil Bros. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

MacNeil Bros. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc.

215 N.E.2d 87, 350 Mass. 772

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 215 N.E.2d 87 (MacNeil Bros. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, 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

MacNeil Bros. v. State Realty Co. of Boston, Inc., 215 N.E.2d 87, 350 Mass. 772 (Mass. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

A final decree after rescript was entered on February 27, 1958. Thereafter, on January 28, 1959, Angus M. MacNeil filed a special appearance, and on February 27, 1959, five corporations not previously party to the proceedings were allowed on motion to intervene. The defendant moved to vacate the order allowing the motion to intervene and to dismiss said motion, and moved also for rehearing on the motion to intervene. Additionally, the defendant moved to vacate the order on motion and to dismiss or strike the special appearance of MacNeil, as well as moving for a rehearing of its motion to strike the appearance of MacNeil. These four motions were denied and the defendant excepted. The final decree disposed of the case and there was no further power in the Superior Court to deal with it save upon a bill of review or in certain exceptional circumstances which do not apply here. Smith v. Weeks, 252 Mass. 244, 252. See Kingsley v. Fall Fiver, 280 Mass. 395, 398. The appearance of MacNeil was a nullity. The duty of the Superior Court was “to follow implicitly the terms of the rescript and not to travel outside what . . . [was] there laid down.” Bourbeau v. Whittaker, 265 Mass. 396, 399. Had it done so it is conceivable that there would not have been presented to us this further and useless question in a litigation which for nearly twelve years has placed a heavy burden on all connected in any way with it.

Exceptions sustained.

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

A final decree after rescript was entered on February 27, 1958. Thereafter, on January 28, 1959, Angus M. MacNeil filed a special appearance, and on February 27, 1959, five corporations not previously party to the proceedings were allowed on motion to intervene. The defendant moved to vacate the order allowing the motion to intervene and to dismiss said motion, and moved also for rehearing on the motion to intervene. Additionally, the defendant moved to vacate the order on motion and to dismiss or strike the special appearance of MacNeil, as well as moving for a rehearing of its motion to strike the appearance of MacNeil. These four motions were denied and the defendant excepted. The final decree disposed of the case and there was no further power in the Superior Court to deal with it save upon a bill of review or in certain exceptional circumstances which do not apply here. Smith v. Weeks, 252 Mass. 244, 252. See Kingsley v. Fall Fiver, 280 Mass. 395, 398. The appearance of MacNeil was a nullity. The duty of the Superior Court was “to follow implicitly the terms of the rescript and not to travel outside what . . . [was] there laid down.” Bourbeau v. Whittaker, 265 Mass. 396, 399. Had it done so it is conceivable that there would not have been presented to us this further and useless question in a litigation which for nearly twelve years has placed a heavy burden on all connected in any way with it.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.E.2d 87, 350 Mass. 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macneil-bros-v-state-realty-co-of-boston-inc-mass-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack