Mahoney v. C.&R. Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1942 |
| Citation | 311 Mass. 558,42 N.E.2d 255 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | MAHONEY et al. v. C. & R. CONST. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action of tort by Timothy J. Mahoney, Sr., and others against C. & R. Construction Company for alleged negligence in the construction by defendant of a sewer upon land adjoining that of the plaintiffs, causing injury to plaintiffs' land and the building thereon. On appeal from auditor's finding in favor of plaintiffs.
Judgment for defendant.Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Leary, Judge.
Before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, LUMMUS, QUA, and COX, JJ.
Max Singer and Viola & Singer, of Boston, for plaintiffs.
W. H. McLaughlin, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort for alleged negligence in the construction by the defendant of a sewer upon land adjoining that of the plaintiffs, causing injury to the plaintiffs' land and the building thereon.
The case was referred to an auditor whose findings of fact by agreement were to be final. The auditor made certain subsidiary findings, one of which was that ‘there was no expert evidence given as to how the high air compressor was operated’ which caused damage to the plaintiffs' building through vibration. Another finding was ‘that the defendant used the best and most improved method in constructing the work being done, also best type of machinery.’ Following the subsidiary findings, the auditor made his ultimate or general finding, as follows: ‘I, therefore, find for the plaintiffs in the sum of * * * $450.00.'
It is now settled that the ultimate or general finding of such an auditor may be corrected in a case like this by inferences drawn by this court from the subsidiary facts found by him. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. English Construction Co., 303 Mass. 105, 20 N.E.2d 939;Galluzzi v. City of Beverly, 309 Mass. 135, 34 N.E.2d 492. See also Hayes v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 310 Mass. 81, 83, 37 N.E.2d 121. There is nothing in the subsidiary facts found that tends to support the conclusion that the defendant was negligent, and some of the subsidiary findings tend to the contrary. The principle that an ultimate or general finding implies the making of subsidiary findings that support it, Maher v. Haycock, 301 Mass. 594, 595, 596, 18 N.E.2d 348, cannot be invoked in this case, for here the ultimate or general finding is expressly based, by the use of the word ‘therefore,’ upon the subsidiary findings stated. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Old Lowell Nat. Bank v. Paine
...of Beverly, 309 Mass. 135, 34 N.E.2d 492;Lewis v. Conrad & Co., Inc., 311 Mass. 541, 542, 543, 42 N.E.2d 732;Mahoney v. C. & R. Const. Co., 311 Mass. 558, 559, 42 N.E.2d 255;Harsha v. Bowles, 314 Mass. 738, 739, 740, 51 N.E.2d 454;Caissie v. Cambridge, 317 Mass. 346, 347, 58 N.E.2d 169;Benj......
-
McAndrew v. Quirk
...the judge decided the suit. Walsh v. Atlantic Research Associates, Inc., 321 Mass. 57, 61, 71 N.E.2d 580. See Mahoney v. C. & R. Construction Co., 311 Mass. 558, 42 N.E.2d 255; Rubino's Case, 328 Mass. 129, 102 N.E.2d 64. The question here is whether the facts admitted by the pleadings and ......
-
Vincent v. Nicholas E. Tsiknas Co.
...findings but this is not conclusive and we think it is apparent that the ultimate findings were so based. Mahoney v. C. & R. Construction Co., 311 Mass. 558, 42 N.E.2d 255; Hanifin v. C. & R. Construction Co., 313 Mass. 651, 661, 48 N.E.2d 913; McAndrew v. Quirk, 329 Mass. 423, 425, 108 N.E......
-
Rubino's Case
...based upon the finding that the employee had not sustained the burden of proof as to the fact of dependency. Mahoney v. C. & R. Construction Co., 311 Mass. 558, 42 N.E.2d 255. 1. So far as the wife is concerned, there was no error. Since she was not living with her husband at the time of th......