Edgecomb v. Edmonston
| Decision Date | 04 March 1927 |
| Citation | 258 Mass. 568 |
| Parties | HORACE A. EDGECOMB v. S. KEMP EDMONSTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
January 26, 1927.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, CROSBY PIERCE, & WAIT, JJ.
Equity Pleading and Practice, Decree: after rescript from the Supreme Judicial Court; Appeal. Evidence, Materiality.
Where no new issue after rescript from this court in a suit in equity is raised on the record, the only function of the trial court is to enter a final decree in implicit accordance with the mandate of the rescript; in such circumstances no evidence offered with a purpose of seeking the entry of a decree varying from that ordered by the rescript is admissible.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on November 13, 1924, to enjoin the defendant from engaging in any line of business similar to that of the plaintiff within the Commonwealth for a period of five years from September 1, 1924.
The suit previously was before this court on a report by a trial judge where the decision was rendered which is reported in 257 Mass. 12 , and is described in the opinion.
Proceedings before Weed, J., after rescript are stated in the opinion. The defendant appealed from a final decree entered after rescript.
The case was submitted on briefs. L.A. Mayberry & P. Mansfield, for the defendant.
R.W. Hale & D Burstein, for the plaintiff.
This suit in equity came before this court in 257 Mass. 12 , on report by the trial judge on his finding and order for final decree. In accordance with the opinion then rendered rescript was sent of this tenor: "Decree to be entered restraining the defendant from engaging in any line of business similar to the plaintiff's within the city of Boston, and from soliciting the plaintiff's customers within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a period of five years from April 16, 1923." Thereafter, without amendment of the pleadings, the case came on to be heard upon the plaintiff's motion for final decree after rescript. The defendant offered evidence to show that, subsequent to the hearing on the merits and the report to this court, the defendant submitted a bid to the government of the United States for doing stenographic work in the Federal courts in Boston in cases to which the United States was a party, and that, while such bid had not been accepted, he has been and now is doing stenographic work covered by such bid for the United States government in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E. Kronman, Inc. v. Bunn Bros., Inc.
...v. Elston, 211 Mass. 478, 482, 98 N. E. 93; King v. Connors, supra; Curran v. Magee, 244 Mass. 1, 5, 138 N. E. 1;Edgecomb v. Edmonston, 258 Mass. 568, 155 N. E. 599. The defendant cannot now contend that she has not wrongfully converted the plaintiff's property by selling it at the foreclos......
-
Martino v. Pontone
...he sold; but not throughout the entire area of the city. Equity is solicitous to guard the rights of the restrained. Edgecomb v. Edmonston, 258 Mass. 568, 155 N. E. 599. Here the restraint should be confined to the area within which the store reasonably sought and supplied customers and wit......
-
Lebow v. Sneierson
...White v. Gove, 183 Mass. 333, 67 N. E. 359;Morgan v. Steele, 242 Mass. 217, 136 N. E. 77, and cases there collected; Edgecomb v. Edmonston, 258 Mass. 568, 155 N. E. 599. There is nothing in Donovan v. Danielson, 161 N. E. 807, to aid the plaintiff. On this record, the appeal must be dismiss......
-
Crowley v. Holdsworth
...of Boston, In re, 223 Mass. 36, 111 N. E. 412, and cases cited. King v. Connors, 223 Mass. 305, 111 N. E. 848.Edgecomb v. Edmonston, 258 Mass. 568, 569, 570, 155 N. E. 599.Bourbeau v. Whittaker, (Mass.) 164 N. E. 453. The claims of the plaintiffs set forth in the motions are not based on an......