Oxley v. Water Supply District

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Oxley v. Water Supply District

315 N.E.2d 891, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 842

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMay 24, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 315 N.E.2d 891 (Oxley v. Water Supply District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

315 N.E.2d 891, 2 Mass. App. Ct. 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxley-v-water-supply-district-massappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack