216 Mass. 264 (1913), Thurston v. Blunt

Citation216 Mass. 264, 103 N.E. 478
Opinion JudgeLORING, J.
Party NameTHURSTON et al. v. BLUNT.
Attorney[103 N.E. 478] Frederick H. Tarr, of Gloucester, for petitioners. E. O. Howard, of Boston, for respondent.
Case DateDecember 15, 1913
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Page 264

216 Mass. 264 (1913)

103 N.E. 478




Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

December 15, 1913


[103 N.E. 478] Frederick

Page 268

H. Tarr, of Gloucester, for petitioners.

E. O. Howard, of Boston, for respondent.


Page 265


This is a petition for a mechanic's lien tried by a judge sitting without a jury. At the trial both the parties asked for rulings. The judge reserved his decision and later filed his findings of fact and rulings of law. The findings and rulings were filed on Thursday, February 20th. Notice of them was given to the attorneys of record on Friday, February 21st. On Tuesday, February 25th, the petitioners' attorney waited upon the judge and stated to him that 'the petitioners excepted to the rulings.' But he 'did not indicate what particular rulings he excepted to, whether to the refusal to adopt certain requests filed by him or to the adoption of certain requests filed by the respondent.'

Page 266

On these facts the respondent contends that no exceptions were saved. But we are of opinion that the statement made by the petitioners' attorney on February 25th was sufficient to save an exception to all the rulings set forth in the judge's findings of fact. To save an exception no form of words is necessary; it is enough that the judge understands that the party wishes to save an exception. Leyland v. Pingree, 134 Mass. 367, 370; Thwing v. Clifford, 136 Mass. 482; Newton v. Worcester, 169 Mass. 516, 48 N.E. 274; Jones v. Newton St. Ry., 186 Mass. 113, 114, 71 N.E. 114.

We are also of opinion that the exceptions were saved in time. Where a case is tried without a jury and the judge reserves his decision (there being no rule of court dealing with the matter), an exception must be saved within a reasonable time after the ruling of law excepted to is made. That is settled. The rule is fully explained in the recent cases of Richards v. Appley, 187 Mass. 521, 73 N.E. 555, Graves v. Hicks, 194 Mass. 524, 80 N.E. 605, and Hurley v. Boston Elev. Ry., 213 Mass. 192, 99 N.E. 1056. In the case at bar Saturday, February 22d, being a holiday, the exceptions were saved on the second court day next after the attorney received notice of the rulings made. That was within a reasonable time. It follows that the exceptions are properly before us.[103 N.E. 479]


To continue reading

Request your trial