Churchill v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 25 June 1874
• Citation: 115 Mass. 310
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Nathaniel W. Churchill & others v. George W. Palmer & others

115 Mass. 310

Nathaniel W. Churchill & others v. George W. Palmer & others

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 25, 1874

March 14, 1874 [Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Contract on a warranty in the sale of a lot of kid gloves. Trial in the Superior Court before Rockwell, J., who made the following report:

"The pleadings and prior record of the case referred to. Defendants A. T. Hall, F. A. Hall and J. F. Macomber alone defended at this trial.

"The plaintiffs introduced evidence, documentary and oral; and this and the examination, and cross-examination of witnesses together with the proof offered by the plaintiffs and rejected by the court, and their exceptions thereto, and the evidence introduced by the defendants in the course of the plaintiffs' case, with the plaintiffs' objections and exceptions thereto, all appear in the notes and report of the same made by the official stenographer of this court, which is filed herewith, and adopted as true, and made a part hereof, the same as if incorporated herein as a statement of the facts.

"The papers in the bankruptcy proceedings in case of Wm. H. Perley may be referred to in the original or certified copies by either party. They had been referred to in the examination of Mr. Thompson, who was to get and produce them; and they are to be treated as in the case. The counsel for the defendants upon the close of the plaintiffs' case, made certain requests, which appear in said stenographer's minutes aforesaid; and, upon inquiry, said he should rest his defence there, and introduce no more evidence.

"The counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the case being taken from the jury, and to the court's ordering a verdict for the defendants. In an oral presentation of his claims in matters of law and fact, he contended that the court should submit the case to the jury with appropriate instructions in matters of law, and that it was the province of the jury alone to pass upon the evidence and find the facts; that there were several aspects or theories presented by the evidence, which, as the jury might find the facts to be, would entitle the plaintiffs to a verdict against one or more, or all of the defendants now defending, either upon the ground of warranty or fraud, or because no title was given to the property by the defendants or either of them, or for the whole or a portion of the money paid by the plaintiffs, upon a count for money had and received, or money paid.

"Among other claims or points, made in an oral discussion, covering the whole case in all the aspects of the evidence, the plaintiffs' counsel presented certain specific requests or propositions of law in writing, which, so far as they are material, are annexed hereto in copy, and are referred to. The court declined so to rule, and refused to grant them, ordering a verdict for the defendants aforesaid, as now defending, without allowing an argument to the jury, or submitting the case to them with remarks, and an opinion expressed, as appears in said stenographer's report, so far as material to this report, and which is referred to. The counsel for the plaintiffs inquired if any question was made as to whether Mr. Hall had the money in his hands at the time of the demand; and if there was, he would like to add that fact. The court said that he did not think there was any question on that point, and said if he were to rule upon that, he should say that the evidence proved that. The counsel for the defendants made no admission about it and declined to do so, and said the point must stand upon the evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, as directed by the court, and the plaintiffs excepted to the refusals, directions of, and course pursued by the court. No specific or other objections to the pleadings were made by the counsel for the defendants or referred to by the court other than as appears by said report of the stenographer. And the plaintiffs' counsel has filed a notice or application in regard to the same, which is referred to.

"The case is reported after verdict to the Supreme Judicial Court, for their determination and direction upon the evidence, exceptions of the plaintiffs and facts reported. If the presiding judge was in error, the verdict is to be set aside, and a new trial granted." The nature of the stenographer's report is stated in the opinion of the court.

Verdict set aside.

A. A. Ranney, for the plaintiffs, read the report, and stated that it would not be necessary to read the evidence, as much of it was not material, and that in his brief he had referred to such parts of the evidence as he deemed essential to an understanding of the points of law. [Gray, C. J. As you have admitted that much of the evidence reported is not material, the court first desires to hear you on the question why the case has been brought before us in this extraordinary form, with this mass of undigested testimony.] It was not deemed possible for the respective counsel in the case to agree upon what evidence was material, and the only way seemed to be to report the whole evidence, and for the respective counsel to refer to such portions of it as they considered material. At any rate, the judge of the Superior Court has seen fit to send up the report in this form. The statute allows a case to be sent to this court on a report. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover upon the evidence introduced by them. To this ruling the plaintiffs excepted. For the purpose of presenting the questions of law which arise, the evidence must be reported to this court. The manner of reporting it is the act of the judge of the Superior Court, and not the act of the counsel.

G. A. Somerby, for the defendants, was not called upon.

The Court then suggested that the case should stand over for a day, and that the counsel should see if they could agree upon an abridgment of the testimony on the coming in of the court.

On the next day the counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he had no further suggestions to offer.

Gray, C. J. Morton, J. Colt & Endicott, JJ., Ames, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Gray; Morton

Gray C. J.

The authority given by statute to the Superior Court to make reports to this court extends only to questions of law. A report, like a bill of exceptions, should be so framed by the presiding judge, or by the counsel with his approval, as to state the nature of the case, and the questions of law intended to be reserved, and so much only of the facts or the evidence as may be necessary to present those questions to this court. The decision of the jury or the court below upon questions of fact or the weight of evidence is not open to revision here.

The purpose of the St. of 1870, c. 312, ^[*] providing for the appointment by the Superior Court in this county of stenographers to take reports of the evidence introduced and the rulings made and instructions given, is to afford assistance to the court and the counsel in conducting the trial, and in drawing up reports and bills of exceptions; not that a complete record of all that took place in the court below, whether material or immaterial to the understanding of the questions of law reserved, should be transmitted to this court.

The report signed by the presiding judge in the present case states none of the rulings upon the admission and rejection of evidence, but merely refers for them to the entire record of the stenographer, through which they are scattered. The remaining question reserved is whether there was any evidence to be submitted to the jury upon the principal issues in the case. The stenographer's record, as printed, covers nearly two hundred pages, and consists, in greater part, of irrelevant and unimportant details of testimony, long cross-examinations affecting only the bias and credibility of witnesses, and interlocutory discussions between the judge and the counsel; and leaves it to this court to sift out from this large volume of worthless matter the several rulings of the judge and the comparatively small portions of the evidence which have any bearing upon the questions of law to be determined.

Such a manner of reporting a case, while it puts the parties to needless expense in the preparation of copies, fails to present with adequate clearness and precision the legal questions upon which this court is to pass. The record now before us affords so extraordinary an example of irregularity in this respect, that it cannot, consistently with a due regard for the orderly and intelligent administration of justice, be entertained in its present shape. It will be open to the plaintiffs to apply to the judge who presided in the Superior Court for a report in proper form of the questions of law which were reserved at the trial.

This question of practice being an important one to the rights of parties in this and other cases, opportunity was given to the counsel to be heard upon the subject, it has been deliberately considered during the adjournment, and the opinion now announced is the unanimous judgment of the court.

Report dismissed.

The case subsequently came before the court on a report of Rockwell, J., in substance as follows, so far as it relates to the questions decided:

The suit is brought to recover either the money paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants, or damages for breach of contract and warranty in the sale and purchase of seven cases of kid gloves.

The plaintiffs introduced William H. Perley as a witness, but contending that, as he was a defendant, though defaulted they being obliged to use him, would not be bound by his testimony, if it was contradicted by other testimony, or not believed; and from his testimony, ^[**] it appeared that Rogers Bros. & Co. of Naples, through John Munroe & Co., at...