Conway v. Callahan
| Decision Date | 25 October 1876 |
| Citation | 121 Mass. 165 |
| Parties | Bernard Conway v. Daniel Callahan |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Bristol. Motion to dismiss the defendant's bill of exceptions to rulings of Brigham, C. J., at a trial in the Superior Court at June term 1876, on the ground that the plaintiff had not been seasonably notified of the filing thereof. It appeared by the docket and files of that court that a verdict for the plaintiff was returned and recorded July 5, 1876. The certificate of the judge on the bill of exceptions was as follows:
Exceptions dismissed.
P. West, (J. M. Gould with him,) for the plaintiff.
H. K. Braley, for the defendant.
The statute requires that a bill of exceptions shall be filed and notified to the adverse party, as well as presented to the court, within three days after verdict, or within further time allowed by the judge before the expiration of the three days. The plaintiff, not having waived compliance with the statute, is entitled to insist upon it. Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7. Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 362. Tufts v. Newton, 119 Mass. 476.
Exceptions dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Moneyweight Scale Co.
...nature of his final action and the pertinent facts on which it rests. Such has been the common practice. See for example Conway v. Callahan, 121 Mass. 165;Glidden v. Child, 122 Mass. 433, 435;Meehan, Pet'r, 208 Mass. 60, 62, 94 N. E. 393; O'Brien v. Boston Elev. Ry., 214 Mass. 277, 279, 101......
-
Walsh v. Wyman Lunch Co.
...certificate, and if allowed the plaintiffs could move in this court that the exceptions be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Conway v. Callahan, 121 Mass. 165;Cooney v. Burt, 123 Mass. 579;Hale v. Rice, 124 Mass. 292;Browne v. Hale, 127 Mass. 158; R. L. c. 173, § 106. The motion to dismis......
-
Doherty v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
...certificate, and if allowed the plaintiffs could move in this court that the exceptions be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Conway v. Callahan, 121 Mass. 165;Cooney v. Burt, 123 Mass. 579;Hale v. Rice, 124 Mass. 292;Browne v. Hale, 127 Mass. 158; R. L. c. 173, § 106. The motion to dismis......
-
Day v. McClellan
...It has been followed in so many cases without question that the practice must be treated as settled. Only a few need be cited. Conway v. Callahan, 121 Mass. 165;Baron v. Fitzpatrick, 167 Mass. 417, 45 N. E. 915;Shawmut Commercial Paper Co. v. Brigham, 209 Mass. 199, 95 N. E. 219;Foley v. Ta......