Tufts v. Newton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Tufts v. Newton

119 Mass. 476, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 62

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 20, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 119 Mass. 476 (Tufts v. Newton) 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

Tufts v. Newton, 119 Mass. 476, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 62 (Mass. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The time for pleading to a writ of error is not fixed by statute, but depends upon the rule of court, which expressly reserves the power to restrict or enlarge the time. Gen. Sts. c. 146, §§ 1-10. Rule 29, 104 Mass. 564. The plea was therefore duly filed.

The statute which r.egulates bills of exceptions clearly requires them, not only to be filed with the clerk, and notified to the other party, but to be presented, within the time specified, to the judge who made the ruling excepted to, and who is to examine the bill and sign with his own hand a certificate allowing or disallowing it. The exceptions in the case at bar not having been presented to the judge within that time, he was not obliged to allow them. Gen. Sts. c. 115, §§ 7, 8. Barstow v. Marsh, 4 Gray, 165. Sawyer v. Yale Iron Works, 116 Mass. 424, 432. Commonwealth v. Greenlaw, ante, 208.

Whether the judge erred in disallowing the exceptions was a matter of record, and could not be affected by oral evidence of his reasons. Brown v. Bull, 3 Mass. 211. Fleming v. Clark, 12 Allen, 191. The question arising upon the record was an issue in law, which a single justice of this court had no authority either to try or to reserve, but which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the full court. Gen. Sts. c. 112, § 5. In the exercise of that jurisdiction, it is ordered that the judgment of the Superior Court be

Affirmed.

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

Gray, C. J.

The time for pleading to a writ of error is not fixed by statute, but depends upon the rule of court, which expressly reserves the power to restrict or enlarge the time. Gen. Sts. c. 146, §§ 1-10. Rule 29, 104 Mass. 564. The plea was therefore duly filed.

The statute which r.egulates bills of exceptions clearly requires them, not only to be filed with the clerk, and notified to the other party, but to be presented, within the time specified, to the judge who made the ruling excepted to, and who is to examine the bill and sign with his own hand a certificate allowing or disallowing it. The exceptions in the case at bar not having been presented to the judge within that time, he was not obliged to allow them. Gen. Sts. c. 115, §§ 7, 8. Barstow v. Marsh, 4 Gray, 165. Sawyer v. Yale Iron Works, 116 Mass. 424, 432. Commonwealth v. Greenlaw, ante, 208.

Whether the judge erred in disallowing the exceptions was a matter of record, and could not be affected by oral evidence of his reasons. Brown v. Bull, 3 Mass. 211. Fleming v. Clark, 12 Allen, 191. The question arising upon the record was an issue in law, which a single justice of this court had no authority either to try or to reserve, but which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the full court. Gen. Sts. c. 112, § 5. In the exercise of that jurisdiction, it is ordered that the judgment of the Superior Court be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 Mass. 476, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tufts-v-newton-mass-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack