Hayward v. Langmaid
| Decision Date | 21 May 1902 |
| Citation | 181 Mass. 426,63 N.E. 912 |
| Parties | HAYWARD v. LANGMAID. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jos Bennett, for plaintiff.
Edgar R. Champlin and Geo. L. Wilson, for defendant.
There are two questions in this case: First, whether the instruction that was requested, 'that the meaning of ratification in law in the adoption of an act which has been done by one purporting or assuming to act as agent,' was properly refused: and, second, whether the motion for a new trial was rightly overruled.
It is evident, was think, that the instruction was understood (and rightly) by the presiding justice to mean that it was necessary to a ratification that the act should have been done by one who represented or held himself out as an agent in respect to the matter to which it related. But such is not the law. It is necessary, in order to a ratification, that the act should have been done by one who was in fact acting as an agent, but it is not necessary that he should have been understood to be such by the party with whom he was dealing. Sartwell v Frost, 122 Mass. 184; Ford v. Linehan, 146 Mass. 283, 15 N.E. 591; New England Dredging Co. v Rockport Granite Co., 149 Mass. 381, 21 N.E. 947; Schendel v. Stevenson, 153 Mass. 351, 26 N.E. 689. The request was therefore properly refused.
2. We assume in favor of the defendant, without deciding that the discretion of the presiding justice in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is not an unlimited discretion, but that circumstances may arise under which it may be revised. The general rule is that it is not subject to revision on exception or appeal. Freeman v. City of Boston, 178 Mass. 403, 59 N.E. 1018; Coffing v. Dodge, 169 Mass 459, 48 N.E. 840; Behan v. Williams, 123 Mass. 366. In the present case we see no ground on which it can be held as matter of law that the judge erred in denying the motion. He may have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...It may be assumed that conduct manifesting abuse of judicial discretion will be reviewed and some relief afforded. Hayward v. Langmaid, 181 Mass. 426, 428, 63 N. E. 912;Manzigian v. Boyajian, 183 Mass. 125, 66 N. E. 413;Berggren v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 231 Mass. 173, 120 N. E. 402, an......
-
Wedgwood v. Eastern Commercial Travelers Acc. Ass'n
...intended to act in his behalf. New England Dredging Co. v. Rockport Granite Co., 149 Mass. 381, 382, 21 N.E. 947;Hayward v. Langmaid, 181 Mass. 426, 429, 63 N.E. 912;Hixon v. Starr, 242 Mass. 371, 374, 136 N.E. 186;Carpenter v. Grow, 247 Mass. 133, 138, 141 N.E. 859;Allen v. Liston Lumber C......
-
Carpenter v. Grow
...reported evidence that the plaintiff was or purported to be the agent of Hubbard Carpenter when he made the contract. Hayward v. Langmaid, 181 Mass. 426, 63 N. E. 912. In view of our decision as to the plaintiff's right to recover on the third count of his declaration, the verdict is to sta......
-
Wedgwood v. Eastern Commercial Travelers Acc. Ass'n
... ... behalf. New England Dredging Co. v. Rockport Granite ... Co. 149 Mass. 381, 382. Hayward v. Langmaid, ... 181 Mass. 426 , 429. Hixon v. Starr. 242 Mass. 371, ... 374. Carpenter v. Grow, 247 Mass. 133 , 138 ... Allen v. Liston Lumber ... ...