Twomey v. City of Worcester

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Twomey v. City of Worcester

76 N.E.2d 556, 321 Mass. 753, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 766

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 4, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 76 N.E.2d 556 (Twomey v. City of Worcester) 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

Twomey v. City of Worcester, 76 N.E.2d 556, 321 Mass. 753, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 766 (Mass. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal dismissed. We have already construed the petition in this case as a petition for a writ of review under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 250, § 22. Twomey v. Worcester, 320 Mass. 758 (rescript). By that rescript we dismissed the petitioner’s attempted appeal from an order of the Superior Court dismissing her petition. Within ten days after the filing of the rescript in the Superior Court the petitioner filed a motion in that court that the court “grant her a report of the evidence or a new trial.” Still later she filed an elaborate motion to amend her first motion “or to amend the petition for a bill of review.” In her motion to amend she sets up alleged facts pertaining to her original action and evidence alleged to have been given and errors alleged to have been made at the trial of that action. The judge denied both the motion to amend and the original motion for “a report of the evidence or a new trial.” The petitioner has filed, in ambiguous language, an attempted appeal, which, however, she says in her brief is from the denial of her motion to amend. The order denying the petitioner’s motion to amend was not ap-pealable under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 96. That order was not an. “order [754]*754decisive of the case founded upon matter of law'apparent on the record” and ’ was not an order of either of the other classes of orders made appealable by that section.

M. T. Twomey, pro se. W. D. Allen, A. M. Hillman & H. J. Meleski, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

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

Appeal dismissed. We have already construed the petition in this case as a petition for a writ of review under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 250, § 22. Twomey v. Worcester, 320 Mass. 758 (rescript). By that rescript we dismissed the petitioner’s attempted appeal from an order of the Superior Court dismissing her petition. Within ten days after the filing of the rescript in the Superior Court the petitioner filed a motion in that court that the court “grant her a report of the evidence or a new trial.” Still later she filed an elaborate motion to amend her first motion “or to amend the petition for a bill of review.” In her motion to amend she sets up alleged facts pertaining to her original action and evidence alleged to have been given and errors alleged to have been made at the trial of that action. The judge denied both the motion to amend and the original motion for “a report of the evidence or a new trial.” The petitioner has filed, in ambiguous language, an attempted appeal, which, however, she says in her brief is from the denial of her motion to amend. The order denying the petitioner’s motion to amend was not ap-pealable under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 96. That order was not an. “order [754]*754decisive of the case founded upon matter of law'apparent on the record” and ’ was not an order of either of the other classes of orders made appealable by that section.

M. T. Twomey, pro se. W. D. Allen, A. M. Hillman & H. J. Meleski, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.E.2d 556, 321 Mass. 753, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twomey-v-city-of-worcester-mass-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack