Channell v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 11 November 1912 |
| Citation | 213 Mass. 78,99 N.E. 769 |
| Parties | CHANNELL v. RYAN et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Mary Channell, pro se.
John T. Ryan, pro se.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus. At the hearing before the single justice, the petition was dismissed. From this decree the petitioner has appealed.
The statute does not allow an appeal from a decision of a justice of this court in an action at law, that procedure being confined to decisions of the superior court. R. L. c. 173, § 96, St. 1910, c. 555, § 4; Cowley v. Train, 124 Mass. 226; Attorney General v. Oliver, 175 Mass. 163, 56 N.E. 969; Brockton v. County Com., 183 Mass. 42, 66 N.E. 427; Norton v. Lilley, 210 Mass. 214, 218, 96 N.E. 351. The only way to bring before the full court for review any decision of a single justice of this court in an action at law is by exceptions, unless he reports the questions raised.
If the matter be treated as properly before us, no error of law appears upon the face of the papers. The function of a writ of mandamus directed to a lower court is to compel it to exercise its judicial functions, not to direct what action shall be taken. Crocker v. Justices of the Superior Court, 280 Mass. 162, 94 N.E. 369, 21 Ann. Cas. 1061. The averments of the answers in substance are that there have been two hearings within a period of less than three months by the judge of the district court up on the petitioner's complaint against her husband for nonsupport, and a decision had thereon, and a refusal to receive another complaint from the petitioner unless some additional fact is presented by her.
If the single justice found these facts to be true, no writ of mandamus could issue.
Appeal dismissed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Court of Eastern Middlesex
...to support their findings and order for removal. Exception to that order brings the case here. Channell v. Judge of Central District Court of Northern Essex, 213 Mass. 78, 99 N. E. 769. This constitutes the first bill of exceptions. The statute respecting review by a judge of a district cou......
-
Moffatt v. Martell (In re Martell's Estate)
...by other tribunals, there must be compliance with such provision. Hack v. Nason, 190 Mass. 346, 76 N. E. 906;Channell v. Judge of Central District Court, 213 Mass. 78, 99 N. E. 769;Young v. Duncan, 218 Mass. 346, 353-354, 106 N. E. 1;Agel v. Steuer, 226 Mass. 126, 115 N. E. 242;Sullivan v. ......
-
Martell v. Moffatt
... ... tribunals, there must be compliance with such provision ... Hack v. Nason, 190 Mass. 346 ... Channell v. Judge ... of Central District Court, 213 Mass. 78 ... Young v ... Duncan, 218 Mass. 346 , 353-354. Agel v ... Steuer, 226 Mass. 126 ... Sullivan ... ...
-
St. Nicholas Russian Ben. Soc. of Salem Inc. v. Yaselko
...court of a decision or ruling by a single justice in an action at law is by a bill of exceptions. Channell v. Judge of Central District Court of Northern Essex, 213 Mass. 78,90 N. E. 769,Cote v. Judge of Second District Court of Eastern Middlesex, 225 Mass. 123, 113 N. E. 777. The petitione......