Cooney v. Burt

Decision Date10 January 1878
Citation123 Mass. 579
PartiesPatrick H. Cooney v. William L. Burt
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Middlesex. Motion to dismiss the defendant's bill of exceptions to rulings of Pitman, J., at a trial in the Superior Court, at March term 1877. The certificate of the judge upon the bill of exceptions was as follows:

"The foregoing bill of exceptions has been examined and found conformable to the truth, and I allow the same, subject to the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court upon the question of law arising upon these facts: The verdict was rendered April 4, and the time for filing and presentment of these exceptions was extended by the court to April 12. Before the said time expired the exceptions were duly filed with the clerk. The last day of said extended time was the day of the annual Fast. The presentment to the court, that is, to the undersigned, the presiding justice thereof, was not made until the day thereafter, and on this ground the plaintiff objected to the allowance thereof."

Exceptions dismissed.

H. W. Bragg, for the plaintiff.

C. S. Lincoln, for the defendant.

Gray C. J. Ames & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Gray C. J.

The question presented does not depend upon the rules which govern the computation of time when the last of a certain number of days allowed by statute or by general rule of court happens to fall on a Sunday or other legal holiday; but upon the construction of the special order made by the judge in this case, which did not define the time by the number of days, but by a particular date, and, as stated in his certificate, was that "the time for filing and presentment of these exceptions was extended by the court to April 12," and clearly did not allow them to be presented to him after that day. The plaintiff, having taken the objection before the allowance of the exceptions, has the right to insist that they were not presented to the judge, as well as filed with the clerk, within the time limited by the judge's order. Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7. Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 362. Commonwealth v. Greenlaw, 119 Mass. 208. Conway v. Callahan, 121 Mass. 165. Walker v. Moors, 122 Mass. 501.

Exceptions dismissed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • London Clothes v. Maryland Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1945
    ...Co. v. Smith, Saxton & Co. 107 Mo.App. 13. Thompson v. Reynolds, 59 Utah, 416. See cases collected in 16 Am. L. R. 1094. See also Cooney v. Burt, 123 Mass. 579 The principal question presented by the defendant's exceptions is whether there was error in the finding that the oral contract of ......
  • Walsh v. Wyman Lunch Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1923
    ...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 dismiss on this ground filed in the tr......
  • Doherty v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1916
    ...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 dismiss on this ground filed in the tr......
  • Martin v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1890
    ...loses all control over the same, and cannot exercise any discretion whatever. 45 Ark. 102; 39 Ark. 216; 119 Mass. 208; 121 Mass. 165; 123 Mass. 579; 124 Mass. 69 Ind. 290; 98 Ill. 235; 56 Iowa 335; 8 Bush, 480; 6 Bush, 27; 5 Col. 133; 17 Munroe, 603; 90 Ind. 404; 97 Ind. 404. Review cases i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT