Polep v. Manning

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Polep v. Manning

4 N.E.2d 447, 296 Mass. 29, 1936 Mass. LEXIS 876

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 9, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 N.E.2d 447 (Polep v. Manning) 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

Polep v. Manning, 4 N.E.2d 447, 296 Mass. 29, 1936 Mass. LEXIS 876 (Mass. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

This is a suit in equity whereby the plaintiff seeks an accounting, discovery and general relief. The bill of complaint sets forth transactions between the plaintiff’s intestate and the defendants and charges that large indebtedness is due from them to his estate. The case was referred to a master under a rule which required him to find the facts and report his findings to the court. The evidence is not reported. Therefore the findings of fact made by the master must be accepted as true. Glover v. Waltham Laundry Co. 235 Mass. 330, 334. The findings are not inconsistent or contradictory or plainly wrong. The report of the master is straightforward and unequivocal. As to the essential allegations of the bill the findings are all adverse to the plaintiff. It would be vain to recount the facts because they present no question of law. A decree was entered dismissing the bill. There is no ground in law [30]*30for reversing that decree. O’Brien v. Gove, 208 Mass. 325. Lovell v. Commonwealth Thread Co. Inc. 280 Mass. 243, 246. Birch v. Arnold & Sears, Inc. 288 Mass. 125, 136.

Decree affirmed with costs.

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

By the Court.

This is a suit in equity whereby the plaintiff seeks an accounting, discovery and general relief. The bill of complaint sets forth transactions between the plaintiff’s intestate and the defendants and charges that large indebtedness is due from them to his estate. The case was referred to a master under a rule which required him to find the facts and report his findings to the court. The evidence is not reported. Therefore the findings of fact made by the master must be accepted as true. Glover v. Waltham Laundry Co. 235 Mass. 330, 334. The findings are not inconsistent or contradictory or plainly wrong. The report of the master is straightforward and unequivocal. As to the essential allegations of the bill the findings are all adverse to the plaintiff. It would be vain to recount the facts because they present no question of law. A decree was entered dismissing the bill. There is no ground in law [30]*30for reversing that decree. O’Brien v. Gove, 208 Mass. 325. Lovell v. Commonwealth Thread Co. Inc. 280 Mass. 243, 246. Birch v. Arnold & Sears, Inc. 288 Mass. 125, 136.

Decree affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 N.E.2d 447, 296 Mass. 29, 1936 Mass. LEXIS 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polep-v-manning-mass-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack