Comins v. Turner's Falls Co.

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Morton C. J.
• Citation: Comins v. Turner's Falls Co., 140 Mass. 146, 3 N.E. 304 (Mass. 1885)
• Decision Date: 23 October 1885
• Parties: Stephen D. Comins v. Turner's Falls Company

140 Mass. 146

3 N.E. 304

Stephen D. Comins v. Turner's Falls Company

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

October 23, 1885

Argued September 17, 1885

Franklin.

Complaint under the mill act, Pub. Sts. c. 190, for flowage. After the former decision, reported 138 Mass. 222, the case was tried in the Superior Court, before Staples, J., who ruled that, if the respondent's dam was effectively raised by him, and thereby flowed the complainant's land, doing damage, it presented a case under the mill act; and excluded evidence offered by the respondent, tending to show that the dam was not higher in its effective height than a former dam, in place of which this dam had been constructed, and afterwards raised.

The jury found for the complainant; and the respondent alleged exceptions.

Exceptions dismissed.

A. De Wolf, for the respondent.

L. D Conant, (C. C. Conant with him,) for the complainant.

Field C. Allen, & Gardner, JJ., absent. Morton, C. J.

OPINION

Morton C. J.

It is the rule, settled by numerous decisions, that exceptions taken in cases pending in the Superior Court cannot be entered and heard in this court until the case has been finally disposed of, or is ripe for judgment, in the court below.

Interlocutory judgmentsor rulings cannot be heard until after a final disposition of the case in the Superior Court. Boyce v. Wheeler, 133 Mass. 554, and cases cited. Crompton Carpet Co. v. Worcester, 119 Mass 375. This rule applies to the case before us. In Marshall v. Merritt, 13 Allen 274, which like this case, was a complaint under the mill act, exceptions were taken to a ruling at the hearing, upon the question whether a...