Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Clerkin

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Clerkin

196 N.E.2d 926, 347 Mass. 765

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 196 N.E.2d 926 (Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Clerkin) 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

Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Clerkin, 196 N.E.2d 926, 347 Mass. 765 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions dismissed. In this action of contract, the defendants (plaintiffs in set-off) excepted to the allowance^ of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and to the allowance of a motion for a new trial of the plaintiff as defendant in set-off. Each motion stated five grounds for requesting a new trial. The trial judge, after hearing, “by endorsement on each motion took the following action . . . ‘After hearing the within motion is allowed.’ ” Subsequently, in compliance with an order of this court, the trial judge filed a memorandum in which he stated that both motions were allowed on the grounds that “the verdicts rendered by the jury were (1) against the evidence, and (2) against the weight of the evidence” and that a further ground was “to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” This statement constituted compliance with G. L. c. 231, § 128. Carver-Beaver Yarn Co. Inc. v. Wolfson, 249 Mass. 257, 258-259. Compare Wright v. Apikian, 270 Mass. 302, 304. See Mealey v. Super Curline Hair Wave Corp. 342 Mass. 303, 305. In any event, the exceptions are not properly before this court since the case was not “ripe for final disposition by the superior court.” G. L. c. 231, § 96.

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

Exceptions dismissed. In this action of contract, the defendants (plaintiffs in set-off) excepted to the allowance^ of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and to the allowance of a motion for a new trial of the plaintiff as defendant in set-off. Each motion stated five grounds for requesting a new trial. The trial judge, after hearing, “by endorsement on each motion took the following action . . . ‘After hearing the within motion is allowed.’ ” Subsequently, in compliance with an order of this court, the trial judge filed a memorandum in which he stated that both motions were allowed on the grounds that “the verdicts rendered by the jury were (1) against the evidence, and (2) against the weight of the evidence” and that a further ground was “to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” This statement constituted compliance with G. L. c. 231, § 128. Carver-Beaver Yarn Co. Inc. v. Wolfson, 249 Mass. 257, 258-259. Compare Wright v. Apikian, 270 Mass. 302, 304. See Mealey v. Super Curline Hair Wave Corp. 342 Mass. 303, 305. In any event, the exceptions are not properly before this court since the case was not “ripe for final disposition by the superior court.” G. L. c. 231, § 96.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.E.2d 926, 347 Mass. 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mergenthaler-linotype-co-v-clerkin-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack