Hirsch v. Goldstein
| Decision Date | 14 December 1928 |
| Citation | 265 Mass. 358,164 N.E. 82 |
| Parties | HIRSCH et al. v. GOLDSTEIN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; J. F. Quinn, Judge.
Action by Benjamin Hirsch and others against Wolf Goldstein. Verdict was returned for plaintiffs. Defendant filed bill of exceptions, and, on plaintiffs' motion, exceptions were dismissed, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
J. J. Butler, of Springfield, for appellant.
S. A. Dearborn, of Boston, for appellees.
This is an action at law. A substantial verdict was returned for the plaintiffs. The defendant seasonably filed a bill of exceptions, which was allowed on April 3, 1928. On May 2, 1928, the plaintiffs moved that the exceptions be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to enter the same ‘as soon as may be’ after the allowance of the exceptions. This motion was supported by an affidavit to the effect that no order had been given by the defendant to the clerk of the court to prepare the record. This motion was allowed. The defendant appealed.
[1] The only question presented by this appeal is whether as matter of law the motion to dismiss rightly could have been granted. Manifestly it might have been found as matter of fact that proper steps had not been taken to have the exceptions entered ‘as soon as may be’ after their allowance. G. L. c. 231, § 135. It must be presumed that the trial court acted upon adequate evidence and found that the defendant in failing to order his exceptions printed within twenty-nine days after their allowance was not acting with reasonable promptness. The case is governed in every particular by Griffin v. Griffin, 222 Mass. 218, 110 N. E. 296, and many cases following it; Crawford v. Roloson, 254 Mass. 163, 149 N. E. 707, and cases there collected; Gordon v. Willits, 263 Mass. 516, 161 N. E. 881, and cases collected.
[2][3] No argument is required to demonstrate that rights of the defendant under article 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of this commonwealth have not been impaired. The Legislature is amply justified in passing any reasonable legislation designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice and to bring litigation to a speedy conclusion.
Allowance of motion to dismiss exceptions affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dodge v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...the time was not so short as to be unreasonable. See Mulvey v. City of Boston, 197 Mass. 178, 182-185, 83 N.E. 402; Hirsch v. Goldstein, 265 Mass. 358, 359, 164 N.E. 82; Bellingham Bay & British Columbia R. Co. v. City of New Whatcom, 172 U.S. 314, 19 S.Ct. 205, 43 L.Ed. 460; Campbell v. Ci......
-
Wiakowicz v. Hwalek
...N. E. 167;Old Colony Trust Co. v. Pepper, 262 Mass. 270, 159 N. E. 604;Lebow v. Sneierson, 265 Mass. 116, 163 N. E. 766;Hirsch v. Goldstein, 265 Mass. 358, 164 N. E. 82. [2] The defendant has filed a petition for the late entry of his appeal under G. L. c. 211, § 11, whereby it is provided ......
-
McCarty v. Boyden
...Mass. 516, 520, 161 N. E. 881, and Lebow v. Sneierson, 265 Mass. 116, 163 N. E. 766, is no longer applicable. See also Hirsch v. Goldstein, 265 Mass. 358, 164 N. E. 82, and Wiakowicz v. Hwalek (Mass.) 173 N. E. 432. The contention of the plaintiff that, because the order was given within th......
- Ivas v. Reardon