Regal v. Lyon

98 N.E. 698, 212 Mass. 230, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 910
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 27, 1912·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Braley, J.

The memorandum of his findings of fact and reasons for decision filed by the presiding judge who heard the case without a jury cannot be considered as constituting a part of the record on which the plaintiffs’ appeal is founded. If dissatisfied with the ruling sustaining the defendant’s answer in abatement they should have excepted. No judgment having been entered there is no question of law apparent upon the record for this court to decide and the appeal must be dismissed. R. L. c. 173, § 96. St. 1906, c. 342, § 2. Cotter v. Nathan & Hurst Co. 211 Mass. 31. Chapman v. Briggs Iron Co. 6 Gray, 330. Hutchinson v. Tucker, 121 Mass. 402. Standish v. Old Colony Railroad, 129 Mass. 158. Ingalls v. Hobbs, 156 Mass. 348. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Macomber, 169 Mass. 580. Boyd, petitioner, 199 Mass. 262. Abbott v. Walker, 204 Mass. 71.

So ordered.

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

Regal v. Lyon, 98 N.E. 698, 212 Mass. 230, 1912 Mass. LEXIS 910 (Mass. 1912).

98 N.E. 698 (Regal v. Lyon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harrington v. Anderson
55 N.E.2d 30 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.
20 N.E.2d 465 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Pheeney v. Malden Coal Co.
14 N.E.2d 136 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Norton v. Musterole Co.
235 Mass. 587 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Moran v. Murphy
230 Mass. 5 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Shapley v. Shapley
104 N.E. 743 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Cohen v. Berkowitz
102 N.E. 124 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Given v. Johnson
100 N.E. 369 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Cressey v. Cressey
99 N.E. 972 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)