National Machine & Tool Co. v. Standard Shoe Machinery Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

National Machine & Tool Co. v. Standard Shoe Machinery Co.

70 N.E. 1038, 186 Mass. 44, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 886

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 20, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 N.E. 1038 (National Machine & Tool Co. v. Standard Shoe Machinery 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

National Machine & Tool Co. v. Standard Shoe Machinery Co., 70 N.E. 1038, 186 Mass. 44, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 886 (Mass. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Hammond, J.

1. The motion to recommit the report to the assessor was addressed to -the discretion of the judge and his decision thereon is not subject to exception or appeal. If the defendant desired the findings of the assessor to be reviewed by the Superior Court, he should have taken specific objections to them and have requested a report of so much of the evidence as bore upon the points covered by the exceptions. If this had been done, these questions could have been brought to this court. Carew v. Stubbs, 161 Mass. 294, and cases cited.

2. It does not appear that there was any error in law in overruling the motion for a new trial. The question of liability had been determined already against the defendant (181 Mass. 275) and it was not open to it to raise that question either at the hearing before the assessor or, by a request for a ruling by the court, on a motion for a new trial. Paddock v. Commercial Ins. Co. 104 Mass. 521.

3. The court had the power to order judgment upon the report of the assessor, and no error in law appears. Carew v. Stubbs, ubi supra, and cases cited.

The result is that the exceptions are overruled and the order for judgment from which the defendant appealed is affirmed.

So ordered.

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

Hammond, J.

1. The motion to recommit the report to the assessor was addressed to -the discretion of the judge and his decision thereon is not subject to exception or appeal. If the defendant desired the findings of the assessor to be reviewed by the Superior Court, he should have taken specific objections to them and have requested a report of so much of the evidence as bore upon the points covered by the exceptions. If this had been done, these questions could have been brought to this court. Carew v. Stubbs, 161 Mass. 294, and cases cited.

2. It does not appear that there was any error in law in overruling the motion for a new trial. The question of liability had been determined already against the defendant (181 Mass. 275) and it was not open to it to raise that question either at the hearing before the assessor or, by a request for a ruling by the court, on a motion for a new trial. Paddock v. Commercial Ins. Co. 104 Mass. 521.

3. The court had the power to order judgment upon the report of the assessor, and no error in law appears. Carew v. Stubbs, ubi supra, and cases cited.

The result is that the exceptions are overruled and the order for judgment from which the defendant appealed is affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 N.E. 1038, 186 Mass. 44, 1904 Mass. LEXIS 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-machine-tool-co-v-standard-shoe-machinery-co-mass-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack