Cotter v. Nathan & Hurst Co.

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: RUGG, C.J.
• Citation: Cotter v. Nathan & Hurst Co., 211 Mass. 31, 97 N.E. 144 (Mass. 1912)
• Decision Date: 15 January 1912
• Parties: COTTER v. NATHAN & HURST CO.

211 Mass. 31

97 N.E. 144

COTTER v. NATHAN & HURST CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 15, 1912

COUNSEL

Frank H. Stewart, Arthur P. Gay, and Alex. S. Neal, for appellant.

OPINION

RUGG, C.J.

It is the settled rule of practice, frequently and uniformly maintained under R. L. c. 173, § 96, as amended by St. 1910, c. 555, § 4, and similar provisions of earlier statutes, that this court has no jurisdiction to consider an appeal until there has been a judgment in the cause. Case v. Ladd, 2 Allen, 130; Bennett v. Clemence, 3 Allen, 431; Com. v. Gloucester, 110 Mass. 491-497; Marshall v. Merritt, 13 Allen, 274; Kellogg v. Kimball, 122 Mass. 163; O'Connell, In re, 174 Mass. 253-262, 53 N.E. 1001, 54 N.E. 558. See Brooks v. Shaw, 197 Mass. 376, 84 N.E. 110. The only way in which an interlocutory order or decision in an action at law can be brought to the consideration of the full court is by report of the justice presiding at the trial. R. L. c. 173, § 105, as amended by St. 1910, c. 555, § 5.

Appeal dismissed.