Hicks v. Graves
| Decision Date | 01 March 1907 |
| Citation | 194 Mass. 589,80 N.E. 590 |
| Parties | HICKS v. GRAVES et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John T. Hicks, pro se. J. W. Keith, for appellee Sibley.
Homer Albers, for other appellees.
This action for a conspiracy comes to this court on an appeal from a judgment for the defendants in the superior court. Our only jurisdiction to deal with the case is that given by Rev. Laws, c. 173, § 96, which opens for revision only matters of law apparent on the record. The plaintiff seems to have a mistaken opinion that we have power to consider the merits of his case on matters of fact.
A careful reading of all the several voluminous papers that have been brought before us discloses no matter of law within our jurisdiction. Exceptions were taken at one stage of the case, but the bill which was presented to the court was disallowed. If the plaintiff was aggrieved by the action of the superior court on this bill of exceptions, his only remedy was by filing a petition to this court to establish his exceptions. Rev. Laws, c. 173, § 110. No such petition has been filed. If the later action of the plaintiff in regard to the order denying a motion for a new trial can be treated as an exception, the only way in which the plaintiff could avail himself of it was by filing a bill of exceptions. Rev. Laws, c. 173, § 106. This he failed to do.
The stenographer's report of the evidence is not a part of the record, and it cannot be considered as presenting questions of law on an appeal of this kind. The record shows no error of law in the disposition of the case.
If there was in the case any important question of law, the decision of which by the superior court was fairly questionable which we do not intimate, the plaintiff has failed to take the measures prescribed by the statutes for bringing it before us for revision. Our action must be limited by our jurisdiction created by the statutes.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrington v. Joyce
...aid. The word ‘record’ in section 96 does not mean a stenographic transcript of evidence and proceedings at a trial (Hicks v. Graves, 194 Mass. 589, 80 N.E. 590;State v. Howard, 117 Me. 69, 71, 102 A. 743), nor the printed papers, often spoken of as the ‘record,’ upon which the case may sub......
-
Guerin v. Com.
...the record. This does not bring up the evidence for review, even if taken by a stenographer. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 278, § 28. Hicks v. Graves, 194 Mass. 589, 80 N.E. 590; Petition of De Propper, 236 Mass. 500, 501, 128 N.E. 785; Dolan v. Commonwealth, 304 Mass. 325, 334, 23 N.E.2d 904; Harringto......
-
In re De Propper
...superior court, including the evidence. This is no part of the record and cannot be brought before this court on appeal. Hicks v. Graves, 194 Mass. 589, 80 N. E. 590;Moran v. Murphy, 230 Mass. 5, 118 N. E. 915;Norton v. Musterole Co., 235 Mass. 587, 127 N. E. 431. It may be added, however, ......
-
Harrington v. Joyce
... ... The word ... "record" in Section 96 does not mean a stenographic ... transcript of evidence and proceedings at a trial (Hicks ... v. Graves, 194 Mass. 589; De Propper, petitioner, 236 ... Mass. 500 , 501; State v. Howard, 117 Maine, 69, 71), nor the ... printed papers, ... ...