Zeo v. Holzer
This text of 185 N.E.2d 926 (Zeo v. Holzer) 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.
Opinion
Appeal dismissed with double costs. The record in this case consists of a “Petition to Vacate Judgment and Supersede Execution,” an answer, a statement that the petition was denied after hearing, and the petitioners’ appeal. The appeal, which is under G. L. c. 231, § 96, does not lie. The denial of the petition is not an order “founded upon matter of law apparent on the record.” Rose v. Harrison, 228 Mass. 261. Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works v. Clark-Rice Corp. 274 Mass. 488, 490. The appeal is frivolous. We might add that, if this case had been brought here by exceptions, no error of law would appear on this record.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
185 N.E.2d 926, 345 Mass. 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeo-v-holzer-mass-1962.