Coleman v. Wallace

• Decision Date: 28 February 1938
• Citation: 299 Mass. 475,13 N.E.2d 379
• Parties: EVELYN COLEMAN v. ELIZABETH C. WALLACE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

299 Mass. 475

13 N.E.2d 379

EVELYN COLEMAN v. ELIZABETH C. WALLACE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

February 28, 1938

May 17, 1937.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., DONAHUE LUMMUS, & QUA, JJ.

Practice, Civil Appellate Division: report.

The propriety of awarding double damages in a finding for the plaintiff by a district court judge in an action for injuries sustained from being bitten by a dog was not open to review upon a report to the Appellate

Division of his "findings" and certain rulings and refusals to rule not touching the matter of damages.

TORT. Writ in the First District Court of Eastern Middlesex dated January 19 1934.

The action was heard by Brooks, J., who found for the plaintiff. A report to the Appellate Division for the Northern District was ordered dismissed. The defendant appealed.

In her brief the defendant stated: "The question . . . is: Whether or not the finding . . . and the order dismissing the report . . . were in error; the plaintiff's damages having been doubled . . . ." The plaintiff argued in her brief that the propriety of awarding double damages was not properly before this court.

R. P. Anderson, for the defendant.

J. A. Lane, (S.

B. Hibbard with him,) for the plaintiff.

RUGG, C.J. The plaintiff seeks in this action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by her on May 13, 1933, as a result of having been bitten by a dog kept by the defendant. The writ was dated January 19, 1934. The defendant filed certain requests for rulings which were denied and were reported. These have not been argued and must be treated as waived. The findings that the defendant was the keeper of the dog and that the plaintiff was bitten by the dog on May 13, 1933, are not now in dispute. No question of law is to be determined on these matters. The trial judge found for the plaintiff and assessed damages in the sum of $300, and added a note "to be doubled." The defendant was notified of a finding against her in the sum of $600. The concluding paragraph of the report was in these words: "This report contains all the evidence material to the questions reported. The defendant claimed to be aggrieved by the rulings and refusals to rule as requested. The defendant claims to be further aggrieved by the findings made by the trial justice. I hereby report the same to the Appellate Division for determination." The report was filed and allowed on October 22, 1936.

No request...