Oxley v. Water Supply District

315 N.E.2d 891, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 842
Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided May 24, 1974·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

This petition for assessment of damages was tried to a jury in the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 79, § 14. Following a verdict for the petitioner, the respondent’s motion for a new trial was allowed, subject to a remittitur, for the reason that the award of damages was excessive. Through her bill of exceptions the petitioner seeks to have us pass upon that action of the trial judge. To pursue that course in our view would be inexpedient and, in our discretion, we decline to follow it. The allowance of the motion for a new trial was interlocutory and the case will not be ripe for final judgment or appellate review until the completion of the second trial which has not yet taken place. Farris v. Saint Paul’s Baptist Church, 216 Mass. [843]*843570, 571 (1914). Barnett v. Loud, 243 Mass. 510, 513 (1923). Anti v. Boston Elev. Ry. 247 Mass. 1, 3 (1923). Donovan v. Donovan, 294 Mass. 94, 96 (1936).

George F. Mahoney (Robert B. Sheiber with him) for the petitioner. J. Owen Todd for the respondent.

Exceptions dismissed.

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

Oxley v. Water Supply District, 315 N.E.2d 891, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 842 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

315 N.E.2d 891 (Oxley v. Water Supply District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D'Annolfo v. Stoneham Housing Authority
378 N.E.2d 971 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1978)
Haufler v. Commonwealth
362 N.E.2d 916 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1977)