Flood v. Grinnell
| Decision Date | 06 April 1934 |
| Citation | 189 N.E. 833,286 Mass. 214 |
| Parties | FLOOD v. GRINNELL (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; F. W. Fosdick, Judge.
Actions of contract by Catherine E. Flood against Mary R. Grinnell and against Harold D. Grinnell. Motions of defendants to dismiss bills of exceptions of plaintiff were denied, and motions of plaintiff for an extension within which printing should be ordered were allowed, and defendants bring exceptions.
Exceptions sustained, and orders entered.
W. R. Scharton, of Boston (M. Palais, of Boston, on the brief), for plaintiff.
M. B. Warner, of Pittsfield, and J. M. Graham, of Boston, for defendants.
In each of these cases a bill of exceptions of the plaintiff was allowed on November 27, 1933, but no order in writing was given to the clerk of the Superior Court in which the cases were pending, within ten days after each case became ripe for final preparation and printing of the record, for the preparation of such papers and copies for transmission to the full court as required by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 135. On January 6, 1934, the defendant in each case filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's bill of exceptions for failure to give such order. On January 12, 1934, the plaintiff filed in each case a motion to extend the time within which such order might be given until January 17, 1934. The judge allowed these motions of the plaintiff and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss.
The trial judge after the expiration of the ten days specified in section 135 had no power to grant the motions of the plaintiff. It has been decided that under this enabling statute the power to extend the time for giving the order must be exercised by the court before the time theretofore limited has expired. Buchannan v. Meisner, 279 Mass. 457, 181 N. E. 742.Stanwood v. Adams Garage, Inc., 281 Mass. 452, 183 N. E. 846. Those decisions govern the cases at bar. In each case the motion of the plaintiff to extend the time for giving the order ought to have been denied and the motion of the defendant to dismiss the bill of exceptions ought to have been granted. The exceptions must be sustained and orders entered accordingly.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Realty Co. of Boston v. MacNeil Bros. Co.
...Buchannan v. Meisner, 279 Mass. 457, 460-462, 181 N.E. 742; Stanwood v. Adams' Garage, Inc., 281 Mass. 452, 183 N.E. 846; Flood v. Grinnell, 286 Mass. 214, 189 N.E. 833; Royal Tool & Gauge Corp. v. Clerk of Courts for County of Hampden, 326 Mass. 390, 392, 94 N.E.2d 781; See Gifford v. Comm......
-
Cherry v. Auger
... ... failure to conform to those requirements. Barrell v ... Globe Newspaper Co. 268 Mass. 99 , 103, 104. McCarty ... v. Boyden, 275 Mass. 91 ... Flood v. Grinnell, ... 286 Mass. 214 ... [300 Mass. 372] ... There is nothing to ... the contention of the defendants that the motion ... ...
-
Giacobbe v. First Coolidge Corp.
...Meisner, 279 Mass. 457, 462, 181 N.E. 742 (1932), Stanwood v. Adams Garage Inc., 281 Mass. 452, 183 N.E. 846 (1933), Flood v. Grinnell, 286 Mass. 214, 189 N.E. 833 (1934), and Royal Tool & Gauge Corp. v. Clerk of the Courts for the County of Hampden, 326 Mass. 390, 392, 94 N.E.2d 781 It is ......
-
Royal Tool & Gauge Corp. v. Clerk of Courts for Hampden County
... ... See Buchannan v. Meisner, 279 Mass. 457, 460-462, ... 181 N.E. 742; Stanwood v. Adams Garage, Inc., 281 ... Mass. 452, 183 N.E. 846; Flood v. Grinnell, ... ...