Mahoney v. C & R Construction Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mahoney v. C & R Construction Co.

42 N.E.2d 255, 311 Mass. 558, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 728

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 27, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 42 N.E.2d 255 (Mahoney v. C & R Construction Co.) 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

Mahoney v. C & R Construction Co., 42 N.E.2d 255, 311 Mass. 558, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 728 (Mass. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Lummus, J.

This is an action of tort for alleged negligence in the construction by the defendant of a sewer upon land adjoining that of the plaintiffs, causing injury to the plaintiffs’ land and the building thereon.

The case was referred to an auditor whose findings of fact by agreement were to be final. The auditor made [559]*559certain subsidiary findings, one of which was that “there was no expert evidence given as to how the high air compressor was operated” which caused damage to the plaintiffs’ building through vibration. Another finding was “that the defendant used the best and most improved method in constructing the work being done, also best type of machinery.” Following the subsidiary findings, the auditor made his ultimate or general finding, as follows: “I, therefore, find for the plaintiffs in the sum of . . . $450.”

It is now settled that the ultimate or general finding of such an auditor may be corrected in a case like this by inferences drawn by this court from the subsidiary facts found by him. United, States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. English Construction Co. 303 Mass. 105. Galluzzi v. Beverly, 309 Mass. 135. See also Hayes v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 310 Mass. 81, 83. There is nothing in the subsidiary facts found that tends to support the conclusion that the defendant was negligent, and some of the subsidiary findings tend to the contrary. The principle that an ultimate or general finding implies the making of subsidiary findings that support it, (Maher v. Haycock, 301 Mass. 594, 595; Rosenblum v. Ginis, 297 Mass. 493, 496, 497,) cannot be invoked in this case, for here the ultimate or general finding is expressly based, by the use of the word “therefore,” upon the subsidiary findings stated. The auditor states his ultimate or general finding as a mere conclusion from those subsidiary findings.

It follows that a recovery by the plaintiffs is not warranted by the auditor’s report.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

Lummus, J.

This is an action of tort for alleged negligence in the construction by the defendant of a sewer upon land adjoining that of the plaintiffs, causing injury to the plaintiffs’ land and the building thereon.

The case was referred to an auditor whose findings of fact by agreement were to be final. The auditor made [559]*559certain subsidiary findings, one of which was that “there was no expert evidence given as to how the high air compressor was operated” which caused damage to the plaintiffs’ building through vibration. Another finding was “that the defendant used the best and most improved method in constructing the work being done, also best type of machinery.” Following the subsidiary findings, the auditor made his ultimate or general finding, as follows: “I, therefore, find for the plaintiffs in the sum of . . . $450.”

It is now settled that the ultimate or general finding of such an auditor may be corrected in a case like this by inferences drawn by this court from the subsidiary facts found by him. United, States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. English Construction Co. 303 Mass. 105. Galluzzi v. Beverly, 309 Mass. 135. See also Hayes v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 310 Mass. 81, 83. There is nothing in the subsidiary facts found that tends to support the conclusion that the defendant was negligent, and some of the subsidiary findings tend to the contrary. The principle that an ultimate or general finding implies the making of subsidiary findings that support it, (Maher v. Haycock, 301 Mass. 594, 595; Rosenblum v. Ginis, 297 Mass. 493, 496, 497,) cannot be invoked in this case, for here the ultimate or general finding is expressly based, by the use of the word “therefore,” upon the subsidiary findings stated. The auditor states his ultimate or general finding as a mere conclusion from those subsidiary findings.

It follows that a recovery by the plaintiffs is not warranted by the auditor’s report.

Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.E.2d 255, 311 Mass. 558, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoney-v-c-r-construction-co-mass-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack