Sessler v. O'Donnell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Sessler v. O'Donnell

195 N.E.2d 505, 346 Mass. 778

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 2, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 195 N.E.2d 505 (Sessler v. O'Donnell) 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

Sessler v. O'Donnell, 195 N.E.2d 505, 346 Mass. 778 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This petition to vacate judgment in an action of tort for slander was denied, and the petitioner excepted. In the tort action the petitioner was the plaintiff. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended declaration but no motion, and the case went to judgment for the defendant (the respondent here). At the hearing on the petition no evidence was presented, and other than the denial no ruling adverse to the petitioner was made. That ruling was discretionary, and the exception brings no error to our attention. Kravetz v. Lipofsky, 294 Mass. 80, 83. Mergupis v. Hackett, 331 Mass. 759. Fox v. Bottomly, 341 Mass. 701, 702. The petitioner’s contention that the judge impliedly ruled that there was not involved a genuine question deserving consideration is not sustained by the record.

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

Exceptions overruled. This petition to vacate judgment in an action of tort for slander was denied, and the petitioner excepted. In the tort action the petitioner was the plaintiff. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended declaration but no motion, and the case went to judgment for the defendant (the respondent here). At the hearing on the petition no evidence was presented, and other than the denial no ruling adverse to the petitioner was made. That ruling was discretionary, and the exception brings no error to our attention. Kravetz v. Lipofsky, 294 Mass. 80, 83. Mergupis v. Hackett, 331 Mass. 759. Fox v. Bottomly, 341 Mass. 701, 702. The petitioner’s contention that the judge impliedly ruled that there was not involved a genuine question deserving consideration is not sustained by the record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 N.E.2d 505, 346 Mass. 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sessler-v-odonnell-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack