Sheehan v. Judge of the District Court of Springfield

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Sheehan v. Judge of the District Court of Springfield

182 N.E. 863, 280 Mass. 467, 1932 Mass. LEXIS 1066

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 26, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 N.E. 863 (Sheehan v. Judge of the District Court of Springfield) 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

Sheehan v. Judge of the District Court of Springfield, 182 N.E. 863, 280 Mass. 467, 1932 Mass. LEXIS 1066 (Mass. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Crosby, J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari. The return to the petition was made in due form by the respondent. The case came on to be heard before a single justice who entered an order reciting that the case came on to be heard and was argued and thereupon it was ordered dismissed. From this order the petitioner undertook to appeal to the full court.

It is familiar law that no appeal lies from such an order. The proper method of seeking review by the full court of a decision or ruling made by a single justice of this court in an action at law is by bill of ¡exceptions or by report. It cannot come before this court by appeal. Channell v. Judge of the District Court, 213 Mass. 78. Cote v. Judge of the District Court, 225 Mass. 123. St. Nicholas Russian Benefit Society, Inc. v. Yaselko, 279 Mass. 81. The case therefore is not properly beford us.

It is not inappropriate to add that the record has been carefully examined on its merits and no error is disclosed. Whitney v. Judge of the District Court, 271 Mass. 448, and cases cited.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Crosby, J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari. The return to the petition was made in due form by the respondent. The case came on to be heard before a single justice who entered an order reciting that the case came on to be heard and was argued and thereupon it was ordered dismissed. From this order the petitioner undertook to appeal to the full court.

It is familiar law that no appeal lies from such an order. The proper method of seeking review by the full court of a decision or ruling made by a single justice of this court in an action at law is by bill of ¡exceptions or by report. It cannot come before this court by appeal. Channell v. Judge of the District Court, 213 Mass. 78. Cote v. Judge of the District Court, 225 Mass. 123. St. Nicholas Russian Benefit Society, Inc. v. Yaselko, 279 Mass. 81. The case therefore is not properly beford us.

It is not inappropriate to add that the record has been carefully examined on its merits and no error is disclosed. Whitney v. Judge of the District Court, 271 Mass. 448, and cases cited.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 N.E. 863, 280 Mass. 467, 1932 Mass. LEXIS 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-judge-of-the-district-court-of-springfield-mass-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack