Manzigian v. Boyajian

66 N.E. 413, 183 Mass. 125, 1903 Mass. LEXIS 730
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 4, 1903·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

These exceptions were taken at a hearing on a motion to set aside verdicts on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The judge found that the newly discovered evidence, so far as material, was merely cumulative. We have nothing in the record that would enable us to revise this finding, if it were proper to attempt to do so.

He also held that the motion should be denied as a matter of discretion; even if the evidence were material and not cumulative.

It is plain that no exception lies to such an exercise of discretion. It cannot be held that a judge is bound as a matter of law to grant a new trial whenever evidence is newly discovered that would justify a jury in reaching a different result if the evidence were presented to them.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Manzigian v. Boyajian, 66 N.E. 413, 183 Mass. 125, 1903 Mass. LEXIS 730 (Mass. 1903).

66 N.E. 413 (Manzigian v. Boyajian) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Sharpe
77 N.E.2d 769 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
DeLuca v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
45 N.E.2d 463 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
Graustein
26 N.E.2d 536 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Henry L. Sawyer Co. v. Boyajian
10 N.E.2d 471 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
235 Mass. 482 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Davis v. Custer
230 Mass. 603 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Miller v. Flash Chemical Co.
230 Mass. 419 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Lambert v. Cheney
221 Mass. 378 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Welch v. Chase
100 N.E. 634 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Powers v. Bergman
96 N.E. 674 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)