Ashapa v. Reed
| Decision Date | 28 October 1932 |
| Parties | ASHAPA v. REED. BILSKY v. SAME. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; T. J. Hammond, Judge.
Actions by Morris Ashapa and by David Bilsky against Peter Reed. From order of trial judge finding for defendant in each case, plaintiffs bring exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
H. W. Radovsky and I. H. Simon, both of Fall River, for plaintffs.
K. C. Parker, of Boston, for defendant.
These are actions of tort to recover compensation for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs through the negligent operation of an automobile by the defendant. The cases were tried by a judge without a jury. At the close of the evidence the defendant filed in each case a ‘written motion’ of the following tenor: ‘Now comes the defendant and moves that the Court find a verdict for the defendant.’ The trial judge made this order: ‘Motion in each case for finding for the defendant allowed and Court finds for the defendant in each case.’ To this order the plaintiffs excepted. Thus is raised the question of law presented on the record.
[1] These motions were not applicable to a trial without a jury. A verdict in law signifies the final action taken by a jury and nothing else. McKinley v. Warren, 218 Mass. 310, 312, 105 N. E. 990. An intelligible form of request to a judge sitting without a jury would have been either to ask for a ruling of law that on all the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover or to ask for a finding in favor of the defendant. A judge sitting without a jury has two functions, one, to make rulings of law, and the other, to make findings of fact. These two functions make findings of fact. These two functions are quite separate and distinct. John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd., v. William Firth Co., 210 Mass. 8, 18, 95 N. E. 961. Parties may rightly request rulings of law of a trial judge sitting without a jury. Such requests must be passed upon by the trial judge and important rights of parties may rest upon such rulings. Castano v. Leone, 278 Mass. 429, 430, 431, 180 N. E. 312. Requests also may be made for findings of fact, although the judge cannot be required to pass upon such requests. His only obligation is to pass upon pertinent requests for rulings of law and to decide the case. Findings of fact not infrequently are made in more or less detail by a trial judge and the reasons stated for the information of parties and counsel, but that is a practice of convenience. Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 235 Mass. 482, 494, 495, 126 N. E. 841. As matter of construction the motions in the cases at bar were merely requests to make findings of fact....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Colon-Cruz
...Law Dictionary 1398 (5th ed. 1979). "A verdict in law signifies the final action taken by a jury and nothing else." Ashapa v. Reed, 280 Mass. 514, 515, 182 N.E. 859 (1932). 28 This interpretation accords with G.L. c. 279, § 70. See note 25 supra. Thus, even if a defendant pleaded guilty to ......
-
Commonwealth v. Hull
...had ruled that a finding for the defendant was required as matter of law. Castano v. Leone, 278 Mass. 429, 180 N.E. 312;Ashapa v. Reed, 280 Mass. 514, 182 N.E. 859. See, also, Pearson v. O'Connell (Mass.) 197 N.E. 486, and cases cited at page 487; Keefe v. McCarthy (Mass.) 2 N.E. (2d) 1013.......
-
City of Boston v. Dolan
...findings of fact, the judge was not required to consider them in an equity case any more than in an action at law. Ashapa v. Reed, 280 Mass. 514, 516, 182 N.E. 859;Kohutynski v. Kohutynski (Mass.) 5 N.E.(2d) 345. In equity, a party entitled to appeal from a decree may require the judge to ‘......
-
Leshefsky v. American Employers' Ins. Co.
...law on the admitted facts this finding was permissible. Moss v. Old Colony Trust Co., 246 Mass. 139, 143, 140 N.E. 803;Ashapa v. Reed, 280 Mass. 514, 516, 182 N.E. 859. The defendant contends, however, (a) that the exception to the finding presents no question of law for decision and (b) th......