Engel v. Checker Taxi Co.
Decision Date | 26 May 1931 |
Citation | 176 N.E. 179,275 Mass. 471 |
Parties | ENGEL v. CHECKER TAXI CO. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; A. R. Weed, Judge.
Action by Albert W. Engel, executor, against the Checker Taxi Company, tried without a jury. Finding for defendant, and case reported.
Judgment for defendant.
Lee M. Friedman and F. L. Kozol, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
T. H. Mahony, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries to the plaintiff's testator while he was a pedestrian upon a public way. The case finally rested on a count alleging that the injuries of the testator arose out of the negligence of one driving an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. The case was tried by a judge without a jury. At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant requested a finding and ruling that the plaintiff had failed to show negligence on the part of the defendant, and another, not material to the grounds of this decision, relating to damages. The trial judge found for the defendant. In connection therewith the filed what is termed a ‘finding and ruling.’ Therein it is stated: Then follows a fair summary of the evidence introduced. There is no recital that any of the evidence was found to be true.
The case comes before us by report, the concluding part of which is in these words: The plaintiff filed no requests for rulings.
[2] No error of law is disclosed by any of the exceptions saved by the plaintiff. The general finding for the defendant imports a finding of all subsidiary facts necessary to that conclusion so far as warranted by the evidence. Adams v. Dick, 226 Mass. 46, 53, 115 N. E. 227. The only question of law presented is whether the finding for the defendant can be supported on any reasonable interpretation of the evidence including legitimate inferences therefrom. The general finding must stand if warranted upon any possible view of the evidence. Moss v. Old Colony Trust Co., 246 Mass. 139, 143, N. E. 803, and cases cited. The credibility of the testimony and the inferences which ought to be drawn therefrom were entirely for the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pittsley v. David
...c. 160, § 234) of the cause of action. In Hennessey v. Moynihan, 272, Mass. 165, 169, 172 N.E. 93, and Engel v. Checker Taxi Co., 275 Mass. 471, 476, 176 N.E. 179, it was held that a plaintiff struck by an automobile might rely as proof of negligence upon the failure of the defendant to giv......
-
Bresnick v. Heath
... ... Engel v. Checker Taxi Co., 275 Mass ... 471, 176 N.E. 179; Winchester v. Missin, 278 Mass ... 427, ... ...
-
Nicoli v. Berglund
...a finding of all subsidiary facts necessary to that conclusion. Adams v. Dick, 226 Mass. 46, 53, 115 N.E. 227;Engel v. Checker Taxi Co., 275 Mass. 471, 475, 176 N.E. 179;Mahoney v. Norcross, 284 Mass. 153, 187 N.E. 227;Wood v. Town of Oxford (Mass.) 195 N.E. 321. Whether or not there was a ......
-
Dolham v. Peterson
...dismissing the report. On appeals like the present, findings of fact made on oral evidence are not reviewable. Engel v. Checker Taxi Co., 275 Mass. 471, 176 N.E. 179;Winchester v. Missin, 278 Mass. 427, 428, 180 N.E. 215;Mahoney v. Norcross, 284 Mass. 153, 187 N.E. 227. Such an appeal bring......