Bova v. Clemente

Decision Date30 March 1932
Citation278 Mass. 585,180 N.E. 611
PartiesBOVA et al. v. CLEMENTE et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Hanify, Judge.

Suit by Antonio Bova and others against Antonio Clemente and others. From a decree of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

F. M. Zottoli, of Boston, for appellants.

F. P. Fralli, of Boston, for appellees.

CROSBY, J.

This is a suit in equity in which the plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendants from selling or otherwise disposing of certain real estate described in the bill, and to require the defendants specifically to perform a certain agreement hereinafter set forth.

Shortly stated, the bill alleges that the defendants are the owners of certain premises numbered 76 Prince Street, in Boston; that they leased a store therein with the cellar thereunder to the plaintiffs by a written lease for the term of three years from December 1, 1928; that on or about December 12, 1929, the defendants undertook to make certain alterations in the building by placing in the store a ‘lally post’ to support the second floor of the building; that the plaintiffs objected to the alterations; that the plaintiffs thereafter withdrew theie objections in consideration of the execution and delivery to them of the following written agreement; ‘I obligate myself to renew three years of lease of the same conditions as soon as my work is complete. No. 76 Prince Street (Signed) A. Clemente (Witnesses) (Signed) P. Catalano Joseph F. Pagliaiulo.’ The defendant Paolina Clemente in her answer alleges that she is the owner of the premises, and is a tenant in common with the defendant Antonio Clemente, and that the above olbigation ‘was not signed by her nor by anybody at her request or authority.’ The case was referred to a master who filed a report. An interlocutory decree was entered in the superior court overruling the plaintiffs' objections and exceptions to the report, ‘so far they concern questions of fact,’ and confirming the report ‘as to matters of fact.’ A final decree was entered dismissing the bill. The evidence is not reported.

As no appeal was taken from the interlocutory decree overruling the objections and confirming the report, the objections cannot be considered unless the final decree is erroneously affected thereby; that does not appear. G. L. c. 214, § 27; Fay v. Corbett, 233 Mass. 403, 409, 410, 124 N. E. 73;Galkowski v. McManus, 257 Mass. 509, 510, 511, 154 N. E. 175. So far as the objections relate to alleged conclusions of law dealt with by the master, they are disposed of by the fact that the interlocutory decree confirmed the master's report only as to matters of fact. The other objections are, in substance, that material facts have not been recited in the report, which omission materially and unfavorably affected the rights of the plaintiffs. The master was not required to report all the subsidiary facts found by him in arriving at his ultimate conclusion. Magullion v. Magee, 241 Mass. 355, 358, 135 N. E. 565. The report seems to have covered adequately the issues raised by the pleadings. The sole question is whether the final decree dismissing the bill was properly entered on the facts found.

Although the defendants were owners as tenants in common of the real estate occupied by the plaintiffs under a written lease, the master specifically found that the ‘written statement * * * was not signed by the defendant Paolina Clemente nor did she authorize the defendant Antonio Clemente to sign for her’; ‘that at no time was the defendant Paolina Clemente present at any of the meetings of the party litigants.’ These findings must stand. The evidence is not reported and the findings are not inconsistent with other findings or plainly wrong. Glover v. Waltham Laundry Co., 235 Mass. 330, 334, 127 N. E. 420;Cronan v. Commissioner of Banks, 254 Mass. 444, 446, 150 N. E. 193;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Motor Aid Inc v. Ray
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 11 Julio 1936
    ...Roberts v. Burnett, 164 Ga. 64, 137 S.E. 773; Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Fleming, 118 Ga. 699, 45 S.E. 664; Bova v. Clemente, 278 Mass. 585, 180 N.E. 611; Wright v. Kaynor, 150 Mich. 7, 113 N.W. 779. We have already pointed out that the evidence disclosed without contradiction......
  • Motor Aid, Inc. v. Ray
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 11 Julio 1936
    ... ... 876, § 71; Roberts v. Burnett, 164 ... Ga. 64, 137 S.E. 773; Charleston & Western Carolina Ry ... Co. v. Fleming, 118 Ga. 699, 45 S.E. 664; Bova v ... Clemente, 278 Mass. 585, 180 N.E. 611; Wright v ... Kaynor, 150 Mich. 7, 113 N.W. 779. We have already ... pointed out that the evidence ... ...
  • Moran v. Manning
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 1940
    ...to bind the entire title, the bill cannot be maintained for specific performance. Tainter v. Cole, 120 Mass. 162;Bova v. Clemente, 278 Mass. 585, 587, 588, 180 N.E. 611. See also Clapp v. Atwood, 300 Mass. 540, 16 N.E.2d 67. And, since the plaintiff did not attempt to exercise his option un......
  • Selig v. Kopsiaftis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 1970
    ...G.L. c. 184, § 7. Initially it may be stated that at the least the lease signed by George Cross was valid as to him, Bova v. Clemente, 278 Mass. 585, 588, 180 N.E. 611, even though it may have been voidable by his wife if it were shown that she had not joined in it. Tainter v. Cole, 120 Mas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT