Mead v. Rudnick

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mead v. Rudnick

35 N.E.2d 485, 306 Mass. 616, 1940 Mass. LEXIS 1105

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 N.E.2d 485 (Mead v. Rudnick) 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

Mead v. Rudnick, 35 N.E.2d 485, 306 Mass. 616, 1940 Mass. LEXIS 1105 (Mass. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal dismissed with double costs. In this action of tort tried in the Superior Court there was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence, and that the damages were excessive. The motion was denied and the defendant appealed. The denial of the motion was not an order from which an appeal lies. It was neither an “order . . . sustaining or overruling a demurrer” nor an “order for judgment upon a case stated,” and it was not an “order decisive of the case founded upon matter of law apparent on the record.” G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 96. The evidence upon which the verdict was rendered is not a part of the record. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. Pheeney v. Malden Coal Co. 300 Mass. 60, and cases cited. Though the court has no jurisdiction of the merits, it has jurisdiction to award costs. Donnelly v. Montague, 305 Mass. 14, 20. The [617]*617appeal is frivolous, and double costs of such appeal are awarded against the defendant. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 211, § 10.

M. H. Slobodkin & H. M. Pakulski, for the defendant. J. S. McKenney, for the plaintiff.

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

Appeal dismissed with double costs. In this action of tort tried in the Superior Court there was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence, and that the damages were excessive. The motion was denied and the defendant appealed. The denial of the motion was not an order from which an appeal lies. It was neither an “order . . . sustaining or overruling a demurrer” nor an “order for judgment upon a case stated,” and it was not an “order decisive of the case founded upon matter of law apparent on the record.” G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 96. The evidence upon which the verdict was rendered is not a part of the record. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. Pheeney v. Malden Coal Co. 300 Mass. 60, and cases cited. Though the court has no jurisdiction of the merits, it has jurisdiction to award costs. Donnelly v. Montague, 305 Mass. 14, 20. The [617]*617appeal is frivolous, and double costs of such appeal are awarded against the defendant. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 211, § 10.

M. H. Slobodkin & H. M. Pakulski, for the defendant. J. S. McKenney, for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 N.E.2d 485, 306 Mass. 616, 1940 Mass. LEXIS 1105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mead-v-rudnick-mass-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack