Goetze v. Dominick
| Decision Date | 24 September 1923 |
| Citation | 140 N.E. 802,246 Mass. 310 |
| Parties | GOETZE v. DOMINICK (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Berkshire County; Nelson P. Brown, Judge.
Actions of tort by Eleanor Josephine Goetze, by her next friend, and by Frederick H. Goetze, against William G. Dominick. Verdicts ordered for defendant, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
The first action was for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff, a giral 5 years and 2 months old, was struck by defendant's automobile. The second action was by the girl's father for consequential damages. At the close of the evidence, defendant moved for directed verdicts. The court denied such motion, but on return of the verdicts stated that with the jury's consent he would reserve the right to enter verdicts for defendant upon consideration of certain questions of law. The jury found for plaintiff in the first action in the sum of $200, and for plaintiff in the second action in the sum of $300. Subsequently the court ordered verdict for defendant in each action.
G. A. Prediger, of Pittsfield, for plaintiffs.
J. M. Rosenthal and John B. Cummings, both of Pittsfield, for defendant.
The defendant in these cases rested at the close of the plaintiffs' evidence and moved that a verdict be directed in his favor. The judge submitted the cases to the jury. A finding was returned for the plaintiff in each case. When the foreman rendered the verdicts the judge stated to the jury:
Nine days later the judge ordered verdict to be entered in each case for the defendant, and the plaintiffs excepted. This procedure conforms to the words of G. L. c. 231, § 120. Kaminski v. Fournier, 235 Mass. 51, 55, 126 N. E. 279. Its effect under the statute was to substitute the later order of the court for the earlier verdicts returned by the jury. When entered by order of the court, they became verdicts of the jury by their consent, given while still acting upon the cases and before their discharge, as if originally so pronounced. Mead v. Robinson, Barnes, 451; Treacher v. Hinton, 4 B. & Ald. 413, 416; Dublin & Wexford Railway Co. v. Slattery, 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pridgen v. Boston Housing Authority
...as provided in G.L. c. 231, § 120, but he did not expressly request or obtain the assent of the jury to do so. See Goetze v. Dominick, 246 Mass. 310, 311, 140 N.E. 802 (1923). The plaintiffs excepted and argue in their brief that such failure to obtain the jury's assent violated their State......
-
Cooper & Co. v. Am. Can Co.
...all, before the injury." Directed verdict for defendant sustained. Rizzittelli v. Vestine, 246 Mass. 391, 141 N. E. 110; Goetze v. Dominick, 246 Mass. 310, 140 N. E. 802. Plaintiff's "testimony was that he alighted from the automobile into the pathway of the trolley car, without looking to ......
-
Nagle v. Driver
...leave reserved with assent of the jury; but there must be a verdict. Kaminski v. Fournier, 235 Mass. 51, 126 N. E. 279;Goetze v. Dominick, 246 Mass. 310, 140 N. E. 802;Bothwell v. Boston Elevated Railway, 215 Mass. 467, 102 N. E. 665, L. R. A. 1917F, 167, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 275. In the case a......
-
Pheeney v. Malden Coal Co.
...recover. See Jabbour v. Central Construction Co., 238 Mass. 453, 131 N.E. 194;Nager v. Reid, 240 Mass. 211, 133 N.E. 98;Goetze v. Dominick, 246 Mass. 310, 140 N.E. 802;Whalen v. Mutrie, 247 Mass. 316, 142 N.E. 45. Appeal ...