Bean v. 399 Boylston St., Inc.
Decision Date | 28 March 1957 |
Citation | 335 Mass. 595,141 N.E.2d 363 |
Parties | William K. BEAN v. 399 BOYLSTON STREET, Inc. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Kenneth C. Tiffin, Boston, for plaintiff.
William P. Everts, Boston, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN and WHITTEMORE, JJ.
The defendant's bill of exceptions seeks to bring here before a decision on the merits the question of the correctness of the denial of its motion to dismiss. The action is in contract by a broker for a commission of $1,795 for negotiating a bank mortgage upon real estate. The writ, which is in trustee process, carries an ad damnum of $2,500, and states that it is 'in an action of contract for personal services.' The ground of the motion is lack of jurisdiction because of violation of G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 246, § 1, as appearing in St.1943, c. 17, § 1, in that a suit by a broker for a commission is not 'an action of contract for personal services' and not one of the exceptions to the requirement that a bond be furnished in actions commenced by trustee process when the ad damnum exceeds $1,000. See Farber v. Lubin, 327 Mass. 128, 97 N.E.2d 419.
The case is prematurely here. By G.L(Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 96, 'no appeal or exception shall be entered in the supreme judicial court until the case is in all other respects ripe for final disposition by the superior court.' Driscoll v. Battista, 311 Mass. 372, 41 N.E.2d 16; Commonwealth v. Dowe, 315 Mass. 217, 219, 52 N.E.2d 406. It is a principle of general application that Rines v. Justices of the Superior Court, 330 Mass. 368, 373, 113 N.E.2d 817, 820. See John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C. M. Fauci Co., 309 Mass. 271, 273; Vincent v. Plecker, 319 Mass. 560, 563, 67 N.E.2d 145. Compare Reynolds v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co., 224 Mass. 253, 254-255, 112 N.E. 859. The rule applies to the denial of a motion to dismiss even when the motion is based on jurisdictional grounds; the denial is not immediately reviewable. Catlin v. United...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. v. Superior Court
...334 Mass. 704, 135 N.E.2d 12 (1956). Rudnicki v. Hearst Corp., 355 Mass. 800, 247 N.E.2d 698 (1969). In Bean v. 399 Boylston Street, Inc., 335 Mass. 595, 596, 141 N.E.2d 363 (1957), dealing with an attempted appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss an action at law, we said: 'The case ......
-
Fabre v. Walton
...Consistent with this rule, the denial of a motion to dismiss is ordinarily not an appealable order. See Bean v. 399 Boylston St., Inc., 335 Mass. 595, 596, 141 N.E.2d 363 (1957). There are limited exceptions to this rule, one of which is the doctrine of present execution. Under that doctrin......
-
Boston Edison Co., In re
...Court, 330 Mass. 368, 373-374, 113 N.E.2d 817, appeal dismissed 346 U.S. 919, 74 S.Ct. 309, 98 L.Ed. 414; Bean v. 399 Boylston St. Inc., 335 Mass. 595, 596, 141 N.E.2d 363. Cf. Vincent v. Plecker, 319 Mass. 560, 563, 67 N.E.2d 145. As stated by Rugg, C. J., in Capano v. Melchionno, 297 Mass......
-
Keene v. Toth
...... G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 273A, as appearing in St.1954, c. 556, § 1. The District Court judge overruled the ......