Cole v. Holton
| Decision Date | 20 January 1931 |
| Citation | 274 Mass. 238,174 N.E. 468 |
| Parties | COLE v. HOLTON et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; D. T. O'Connell, Judge.
Suit by Harold E. Cole against Jesse A. Holton and another. From decree entered after denial of motion for new trial made after rescript from the Supreme Judicial Court, the named defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
H. E. Cole, of Boston, pro. se.
J. W. Gorman, of Jamaica Plain, for defendant Holton.
This case comes before us for the second time on appeal from final decree after rescript. The case is reported in 172 N. E. 858. As a result of the exhaustive opinion there rendered the final decree with some modifications was affirmed with costs. After the rescript from this court the defendant Holton filed a motion for a new trial on the ground, in substance, that he had made a mistake of law in presenting his case and that justice required that there be further hearing. This motion was denied after hearing, and a final decree after rescript was entered. If it be assumed in favor of the defendant Holton that it would have been within the discretionary power of the superior court to grant his request,see Day v. Mills, 213 Mass. 585, 100 N. E. 1113, it is plain that there was no error of law in the denial. It is the general principle that there can be no appeal from a final decree entered in accordance with a rescript from this court. Boston, Petitioner, 223 Mass. 36, 111 N. E. 412, and cases there collected.
Decree affirmed with double costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carilli v. Hersey
...New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 201 Mass. 370, 371, 87 N.E. 621;Crowley v. Holdsworth, 267 Mass. 13, 16, 165 N.E. 884;Cole v. Holton, 274 Mass. 238, 174 N.E. 468;Dondis v. Lash, 283 Mass. 353, 354, 355, 186 N.E. 549;Long Beach Dock & Terminal Co. v. Pacific Dock & Terminal Co., 9 Cir., 9......
-
Carilli v. Hersey
...Railroad, 201 Mass. 370 , 371. Boston Bar Association v. Casey, 227 Mass. 46, 50. Crowley v. Holdsworth, 267 Mass. 13 , 16. Cole v. Holton, 274 Mass. 238. v. Lash, 283 Mass. 353 , 354-355. Long Beach Dock & Terminal Co. v. Pacific Dock & Terminal Co. 98 F.2d 833, 835. It is true, that even ......
-
Dondis v. Lash
...or judgment will stand as if there had been no appeal.’ In re Boston, petitioner, 223 Mass. 36, 37, 111 N. E. 412, 413;Cole v. Holton, 274 Mass. 238, 174 N. E. 468. The rescript in the case at bar did not state the form of the final decree but ordered among other matters not now material th......
-
J. J. Struzziery Co. v. A. V. Taurasi Co.
...general principle that there can be no appeal from a final decree entered in accordance with a rescript from this court (Cole v. Holton, 274 Mass. 238, 239, 174 N.E. 468), an appeal may, however, be taken from a final decree after rescript to determine whether that decree conforms with the ......