Mitchell v. Cobb

107 N.E. 388, 220 Mass. 60, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1595
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided December 31, 1914·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Rugg, C. J.

This case is brought up by an “appeal from the finding.and decision” of the Land Court. If it be assumed in favor of the appellant, but without so deciding, that a “decision” under the Land Court procedure is something more than a finding of facts in an action at law, Cressey v. Cressey, 213 Mass. 191, and is a matter from which an appeal lies, Welsh, petitioner, 175 Mass. 68, 70, Welsh v. Briggs, 204 Mass. 540, 549, no question of law is raised upon this record.

The paper entitled “Decision” is a simple finding of facts with a narration of some evidence. Whether the conclusion of the judge was warranted or not cannot be determined. The evidence is not reported. There is reference to plans, but they are not a part of the record. No ruling of law appears to have been made. But, if any was made, it is not set out in such way as to be subject to review. See Hutchins v. Nickerson, 212 Mass. 118; Weil v. Boston Elevated Railway, 216 Mass. 545.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Mitchell v. Cobb, 107 N.E. 388, 220 Mass. 60, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1595 (Mass. 1914).

107 N.E. 388 (Mitchell v. Cobb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sheehan Construction Co. v. Dudley
12 N.E.2d 180 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Bacon v. Kenneson
194 N.E. 832 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Jones v. Stevens
177 N.E. 91 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Holmes v. Barrett
269 Mass. 497 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Marble v. Bloom
159 N.E. 735 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Bucella v. Agrippino
154 N.E. 79 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Bessey v. Ollman
242 Mass. 89 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)