Purcell v. Boston, Halifax, & Prince Edward Island Steamship Line

23 N.E. 834, 151 Mass. 158, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 169
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 26, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 23 N.E. 834 (Purcell v. Boston, Halifax, & Prince Edward Island Steamship Line) 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
Purcell v. Boston, Halifax, & Prince Edward Island Steamship Line, 23 N.E. 834, 151 Mass. 158, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 169 (Mass. 1890).

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The defendant’s exceptions cannot be entertained and considered, because the defendant failed to give to the plaintiff the notice required by the Pub. Sts. c. 153, § 8. It is there provided that exceptions “ shall be filed with the clerk and notice thereof given to the adverse party . . . within three days after the verdict. . . . For good cause shown, a further time, not exceeding five days unless by consent of the adverse party, may be allowed by the court.” An extension of time was given, which expired on June 13, on which day the defendant filed exceptions, but gave no notice to the plaintiff until June 24. There is no room for the suggestion of the defendant, that, when a further time is allowed, no notice at all need be given to the adverse party. The plaintiff has never waived the omission to give seasonable notice to him, and he raised the objection before [159]*159the allowance of the exceptions. The giving of the notice seasonably to the adverse party is made essential by the statute, and the plaintiff had a right to insist upon his objection, and under this state of things the court could not properly allow the defendant’s exceptions. Conway v. Callahan, 121 Mass. 165. Spofford v. Loveland, 130 Mass. C.

The usual and sufficient method of presenting a question of this kind is by a certificate of the facts, made by the presiding justice upon the bill of exceptions. Conway v. Callahan, 121 Mass. 165. Browne v. Hale, 127 Mass. 158, 161. But since it was a question of law whether under the circumstances the court had a right to allow the exceptions, the plaintiff might also properly present that question by a separate bill of exceptions, as was done in Cowley v. McLaughlin, 141 Mass. 181, 183. Pub. Sts. c. 153, § 8.

Plaintiff's exceptions sustained.

Defendant's exceptions dismissed.

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

Related

Calcagno v. P. H. Graham & Sons Co.
47 N.E.2d 857 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Gallagher v. Atkins
25 N.E.2d 743 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Day
125 N.E. 846 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Moneyweight Scale Co.
225 Mass. 473 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Hurley v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
99 N.E. 1056 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Dolan v. Boott Cotton Mills
70 N.E. 1025 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Baron v. Fitzpatrick
45 N.E. 915 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 N.E. 834, 151 Mass. 158, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purcell-v-boston-halifax-prince-edward-island-steamship-line-mass-1890.