Greene v. Farlow
| Decision Date | 17 November 1884 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Matilda R. Greene & others v. John S. Farlow |
Argued November 13, 1884.
Suffolk.
Writ of entry. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C J., the jury returned a verdict for the tenant; and the demandants moved that the verdict be set aside and a new trial ordered, for the following reasons: "That by accident and mistake they omitted to put in evidence a quitclaim deed from Thomas W. Sumner, husband of Elizabeth Sumner, their ancestor, to John Hubbart, dated November 17 1818, and recorded with Suffolk registry of deeds, lib. 262 fol. 285; that said deed covered and purported to convey the demanded premises, and is deemed essential to the proper determination of their rights."
At the hearing of the motion the following was the only affidavit submitted by the demandants in support of their motion:
"I Edward Avery, on oath depose and say, that, in the trial of the case of Matilda R. Greene et al. v. John S. Farlow, I was prepared and expected to introduce in evidence, as tending to show that the right of entry first accrued to my clients in 1849, the record of a deed of quitclaim from Thomas W. Sumner, husband of Elizabeth Sumner, to John Hubbart, dated November 17, 1818, and recorded with Suffolk deeds, lib. 262, fol. 285; that I deem the evidence of great importance in properly determining the rights of my clients, and that it was omitted by my accident and mistake."
The tenant requested the judge to rule that the motion and affidavit in support thereof were insufficient; but he refused so to rule, and directed the hearing to proceed. Further evidence was then introduced; and the judge found that the facts of the "accident and mistake" alleged as a cause for a new trial in the affidavit were as follows:
The deed described in said affidavit was known before the trial to Mr. Avery, then acting as counsel of the demandants, was relied upon by him to sustain the demandants' cause of action, and he prepared and intended to put in evidence the deed, by means of a public record of the same legally made. In the trial of the action, the demandants rested their case without offering said deed in evidence; the tenant put in no evidence; and, by order of the judge, who ruled that, upon the demandants' case, they could not maintain the action, the jury returned a verdict for the tenant.
Mr Avery, on the day when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Dascalakis
...the court acted without any statute. The grounds are no broader under the statute than without it. Cutler v. Rice, 14 Pick. 494;Greene v. Farlow, 138 Mass. 146;Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway, 235 Mass. 482, 496, 126 N. E. 841. The effect of the present statute, so far as concerns the word......
-
Davis v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...of some accident, mistake, or misfortune in the conduct of the trial, a new trial is necessary to prevent a failure of justice.’ Greene v. Farlow, 138 Mass. 146. It commonly and rightly is said that such a motion is addressed to the discretion of the court. By such expression is implied abs......
-
Weil v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
... ... considered exceptions coming before it in substantially the ... same way as the present bill. Greene v. Farlow, 138 ... Mass. 146; Harrington v. Worcester, L. & S. St. Ry., ... 157 Mass. 579, 32 N.E. 955; Ellis v. Ginsberg, 163 ... Mass. 143, 39 ... ...
-
Culp v. Culp
... ... account of the oversight of counsel, as indeed, has been ... decided in some States. Greene v. Farlow, 138 Mass ... 146; Brock v. [South & N. A.] Railroad [Co.] 65 Ala ... 79; and see on this point also, 14 Ency. Pl. & Pr. p. 732 et ... ...