Clark v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 January 1919 |
| Citation | 121 N.E. 497,231 Mass. 546 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | CLARK v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; Franklin T. Hammond, Judge.
Action by Stephen H. Clark, administrator, against the New England Telephone & Telegraph Company. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
J. W. & C. R. Cummings and J. W. Nugent, all of Fall River, for plaintiff.
Powers & Hall, of Boston, for defendant.
At the former hearing before this court, Clark v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Company, 229 Mass. 1, 118 N. E. 348, upon the evidence then presented, it was adjudicated that ‘the obligation to make payments out of the fund was confined to such as were ordered by the committee’; that ‘the committee is made the quasi arbitrator as to all claims against the fund’; that ‘so far as that plan is executed in good faith, no sound reason appears why its terms should not govern the rights of the parties'; that ‘the fund was established exclusively for the benefit of its employees'; that ‘to place its administration concerning payments to be made from it wholly in their hands cannot be said as matter of law to have been improper or contrary to public policy’; that there could be no recovery ‘if the committee made no order for payment to the plaintiff because they found in good faith that he was not dependent upon the earnings of the deceased’; and that it was not ‘evidence of bad faith or dishonesty’ that the committee relied on the report of its investigator and made its decision without noitce to, or a hearing of, the parties.
The conclusiveness of that decision is not open to attack. It is the law of the case. The plaintiff to get a jury upon a new trial involving these issues must produce for their consideration evidence which, had it been produced at the former trial in addition to that offered, would have necessitated a different conclusion by this court. Taylor v. Pierce Bros., Ltd., 220 Mass. 254, 107 N. E. 947.
At the former trial is appeared that the committee referred to was composed of five heads of departments of the defendant, all its employees and fellow employees with the deceased. At the new trial in addition it appeared that the committee was appointed in November, 1912, and that its membership remained the same during the year 1913; that of the five members one was a director and one was the secretary of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haft v. Dart Group Corp.
...223 N.W. 772, 773 (1929); Leigh Aitchison, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, 188 Wis. 218, 205 N.W. 806 (1925); Clark v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 231 Mass. 546, 121 N.E. 497, 498 (1919); Bullock Beresford Mfg. Co. v. Hedges, 76 Ohio St. 91, 81 N.E. 171, 172 (1907); Vardeman v. Penn Mut. Life I......
-
Peterson v. Hopson
...Brothers, Ltd., 220 Mass. 254, 107 N.E. 947;Rubenstein v. Lottow, 223 Mass. 227, 234, 111 N.E. 973;Clark v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 231 Mass. 546, 548, 121 N.E. 497;Pizer v. Hunt, 253 Mass. 321, 333, 148 N.E. 801;Massachusetts Gasoline & Oil Co. v. Go-Gas Co., 267 Mass. 122, ......
-
Peterson v. Hopson
... ... once decided. Nerbonne v. New England Steamship Co ... 288 Mass. 508 , 510. Hayes v. Hurley, 292 Mass. 109 ... 220 Mass. 254. Rubenstein v. Lottow, 223 Mass. 227 , ... 234. Clark v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. 231 ... Mass. 546 , 548. Pizer ... ...
-
Partridge v. United Elastic Corp.
... ... 140][192 N.E. 461]J. N. Clark, of Boston, for plaintiff.F. J. Carney and W. J. Killion, both of Boston, ... 20, 1929, the plaintiff's intestate was employed by the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company as a firstclass repair man in Easthampton ... ...