Hogan v. Ward
| Decision Date | 12 January 1875 |
| Citation | 117 Mass. 67 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | James Hogan & another v. William H. Ward & another |
Middlesex. Contract, begun by a writ dated February 1, 1872, returnable to the Superior Court. At June term, 1872, the case was, by agreement of parties and rule of court, referred to three referees, whose judgment was to be final. An award was made by two of the referees in favor of the plaintiffs, which was filed in court. This was set aside and the case recommitted to the same referees. One of the referees declined to act further, and the others made a second award in favor of the plaintiffs, and filed it in court. This award was set aside, and the plaintiffs appealed, and, without anything further being done in the Superior Court, entered the appeal in this court.
Appeal dismissed.
G. W. Norris, for the plaintiffs, cited Lanesborough v. County Commissioners, 22 Pick. 278; Day v. Laflin, 6 Met. 280; Skeels v. Chickering, 7 Met. 316; Peck v. Hapgood, 10 Met. 172; Walker v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 3 Cush. 1, 11; Cochrane v. Boston, 1 Allen 480.
W. S. Gardner & L. H. Wakefield, for the defendants, were not called upon.
An appeal from a ruling or order of the Superior Court in an action pending there cannot be entered in this court until after final judgment in the court below. Bennett v. Clemence, 3 Allen 431, and other cases collected in Commonwealth v. Gloucester, 110 Mass. 491, 497. Riley v. Farnsworth, 116 Mass. 223. The present action was commenced in the Superior Court, referred by rule of that court to arbitrators, and is still pending and must be finally determined there.
The case differs from those cited for the appellants, of awards upon a submission before a justice of the peace, or verdicts of a sheriff's jury, in which nothing but the award or the verdict is ever in the Superior Court.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.
...1840, c. 87, § 5, as ‘judgment * * * founded upon matter of law apparent on the record.’ Riley v. Farnsworth, 116 Mass. 223, 225;Hogan v. Ward, 117 Mass. 67;Boyce v. Wheeler, 133 Mass. 554. See Lowd v. Brigham, 154 Mass. 107, 109, 26 N.E. 1004;Elliot v. Elliot, 133 Mass. 555;Weil v. Boston ......
-
Brandon v. Hines
...often seem to have held nonappealable an order vacating an award rendered in the course of a pending action. See, e.g., Hogan v. Ward, 117 Mass. 67, 67 (1875); Harding v. Hart, 118 N.C. 839, 840, 24 S.E. 668, 668 (1896); Warren v. Stancill & Randolph, 117 N.C. 112, 112-14, 23 S.E. 216, 216 ......
-
Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.
... ... c. 87, Section 5, as "judgment ... founded upon matter ... of law apparent on the record." Riley v ... Farnsworth, 116 Mass. 223 , 225. Hogan v. Ward, ... 117 Mass. 67. Boyce v. Wheeler, 133 Mass. 554 (see ... Lowd v. Brigham, 154 Mass. 107 , 109). Elliot v ... Elliot, 133 Mass. 555 ... ...
-
Weil v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...163; Elliot v. Elliot, 133 Mass. 555; Boyce v. Wheeler, 133 Mass. 554; Fuller v. Chapin, 165 Mass. 1, 3, 42 N.E. 115. See also Hogan v. Ward, 117 Mass. 67; v. Horton, 129 Mass. 527; Ellis v. Atlantic & Pacific R. R., 134 Mass. 338, 340. Although these cases were decided and the language quo......