Telch v. Hamburger

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Telch v. Hamburger

155 N.E. 658, 259 Mass. 21, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1140

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 12, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 155 N.E. 658 (Telch v. Hamburger) 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

Telch v. Hamburger, 155 N.E. 658, 259 Mass. 21, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1140 (Mass. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

After this case was entered, the defendants filed a motion for specifications on which, on May 1, 1923, it was ordered that certain specifications be filed within two weeks. Time for compliance with this order was extended to and including August 20, 1923. There was no compliance with this order. On April 8, 1926, motion was made by the plaintiff for leave to file specifications. At the hearing upon this motion counsel for defendants moved that the plaintiff be nonsuited for failure to comply with the order of 1923, and stated that the motion would have been filed earlier had he not supposed until 1926 that the case had been dismissed in accordance with notice issued by the clerk of the court in June, 1924. It was agreed that present counsel for the plaintiff, who had entered his appearance in February, 1926, had been diligent in his efforts to proceed with the case. The judge denied the motion for leave to file specifications, and granted the motion to nonsuit the plaintiff. No evidence is reported.

The disposition of these motions rested in sound judicial discretion. There is nothing to indicate that there was any abuse of discretion. The case is governed by Nickerson v. Glines, 220 Mass. 333. Common Law Rule 6 of the Superior Court (1915). See Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482, 496, 497.

Exceptions overruled.

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

By the Court.

After this case was entered, the defendants filed a motion for specifications on which, on May 1, 1923, it was ordered that certain specifications be filed within two weeks. Time for compliance with this order was extended to and including August 20, 1923. There was no compliance with this order. On April 8, 1926, motion was made by the plaintiff for leave to file specifications. At the hearing upon this motion counsel for defendants moved that the plaintiff be nonsuited for failure to comply with the order of 1923, and stated that the motion would have been filed earlier had he not supposed until 1926 that the case had been dismissed in accordance with notice issued by the clerk of the court in June, 1924. It was agreed that present counsel for the plaintiff, who had entered his appearance in February, 1926, had been diligent in his efforts to proceed with the case. The judge denied the motion for leave to file specifications, and granted the motion to nonsuit the plaintiff. No evidence is reported.

The disposition of these motions rested in sound judicial discretion. There is nothing to indicate that there was any abuse of discretion. The case is governed by Nickerson v. Glines, 220 Mass. 333. Common Law Rule 6 of the Superior Court (1915). See Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482, 496, 497.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.E. 658, 259 Mass. 21, 1927 Mass. LEXIS 1140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/telch-v-hamburger-mass-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack