Galkowski v. McManus

• Decision Date: 24 November 1926
• Citation: 257 Mass. 509,154 N.E. 175
• Parties: GALKOWSKI v. McMANUS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

257 Mass. 509

154 N.E. 175

GALKOWSKI

v.McMANUS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

Nov. 24, 1926.

Appeal from Superior Court, Worcester County; E. T. Broadhurst, Judge.

Suit in equity by Stanislaw Galkowski against Thomas J. McManus and another to rescind deed and to recover price paid for land. From final decree dismissing bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

F. P. McKeon, of Worcester, for appellant.

J. J. McCarthy and J. F. McGrath, both of Worcester, and F. T. Mullin, of Rockdale, for appellees.

CROSBY, J.

This is a suit in equity in which the plaintiff seeks to rescind a certain deed of real estate given him by the defendants, to recover the purchase price paid, and for general relief.

The parties on August 8, 1924, entered into a written agreement by the terms of which the defendants were to sell to the plaintiff two parcels of real estate upon each of which was a three-tenement house occupied by tenants. The premises were to be conveyed on or before August 15, 1925, subject to a first mortgage on each parcel, the defendant agreeing to pay certain amounts in cash and the balance of the purchase price to be secured by a mortgage on the property conveyed. The plaintiff seeks to rescind the deed on the ground that he was induced to purchase the property by reason of false representations made to him by the defendants respecting the sums for which the tenements were rented. The case was referred to a master. The plaintiff filed eighteen exceptions to the master's report, and a motion to recommit the report. The trial judge sustained the first and eighteenth exceptions and ordered the report recommitted. Thereafter the master filed a supplemental report, and an interlocutory decree was entered overruling the exceptions (except so far as previously sustained) to the report and supplemental report and confirming the reports. A final decree has been entered dismissing the bill with costs, from which decree the plaintiff appealed.

[1] As no appeal was taken from the interlocutory decree overruling the exceptions and confirming the reports, they cannot be considered unless the final decree is erroneously affected by the interlocutory decree. Burnett v. Commonwealth, 169 Mass. 417, 48 N. E. 758;Fay v. Corbett, 233 Mass. 403, 409, 410, 124 N. E. 73. We find nothing in the objections upon which the exceptions are founded from which it appears that the final decree is erroneously affected by the interlocutory decree. It...