Crowley v. Holdsworth

• Decision Date: 02 April 1929
• Parties: CROWLEY et al. v. HOLDSWORTH et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

267 Mass. 13

165 N.E. 884

CROWLEY et al.

v.HOLDSWORTH et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 2, 1929.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Marcus Morton, Judge.

Suit by Dennis F. Crowley and others against Fred Holdsworth and others. From the denial of certain motions, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.Asa P. French, of Boston, for appellants.

Sherman L. Whipple, Lothrop Withington, and Edward C. Park, all of Boston, for appellees.

CROSBY, J.

This is a suit in equity brought in the Superior Court, and is before us on appeal by the plaintiffs from the denial of a ‘Petition (or Motion) to Re-Open and Review the Final Decree’ and of a ‘Motion for Final Decree after Rescript from Supreme Judicial Court,’ and from the final decree entered after rescript following the decision reported in Crowley et al. v. Holdsworth et al., 162 N. E. 334, where the facts are set forth at length and need not here be recited. The final decree entered was in substantial accord with the rescript from this court.

Both the above motions, in substance, seek a decree that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover interest upon the amounts paid on account of the purchase price of the property in question, from the dates in 1924 when they were paid to April 16, 1926; and that they are to be relieved from paying interest on their mortgage note given for the balance of the purchase price from its date to April 16, 1926; that they are entitled to recover the amount of taxes and insurance premiums paid on the property, and the income on the property collected by the receiver after deducting proper charges of the receivership, and that such amounts should be credited with ‘the net profits, if any, which the plaintiffs received from the occupancy of the property to the date of the appointment of the receiver. * * *’ The effect of these motions is to have the sale of the property treated as having occurred on April 16, 1926, when the tender of the deeds conveying the strip of land not included in the original deed and right of way was made, instead of on June 14, 1924, when the original conveyance was actually made.

[1][3] The general rule is that there can be no appeal from a final decree entered substantially in accordance with a rescript from this court. In appropriate instances where such an appeal lies, the only question open is whether the decree properly conforms to the rescript. Attorney General v. New York, New Haven & H. R. Co., 201 Mass. 370, 371, 87 N. E. 621;Phelps v. Lowell Institution for Savings, 214 Mass. 560, 561, 101 N. E. 1065;City of Boston, In re, 223 Mass. 36, 111 N. E. 412, and cases cited. King v. Connors, 223 Mass. 305, 111...