Holdsworth v. Tucker
| Decision Date | 29 October 1888 |
| Citation | 18 N.E. 430,147 Mass. 572 |
| Parties | HOLDSWORTH v. TUCKER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
October 29, 1888
N.E. Bragg, for plaintiff.
Braley & Swift, for defendant.
The question of law which the plaintiff now attempts to raise was open to her at the trial. As she did not then raise it, she cannot avail herself of it upon a motion for a new trial. No appeal lies from the order of the superior court overruling the motion for a new trial. Whittaker v. West Boylston, 97 Mass. 273, and cases cited. Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Mayberry
... ... North Point Irrigation Co. v. Canal Co., 14 Utah ... 155; Eastman v. Gurrey, 14 Utah 169; Young v ... Shellenberger, 41 N.E. 519; Holdsworth v ... State, 18 N.E. 430; Kearney v. Snodgrass, 7 P ... 309; Roberts v. State, 3 Tex. App. 47; Ziter v ... Jones, 48 Md. 116; Sams v. Hoover, ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Gedzium
...attempt to take any advantage of the point then, he cannot successfully raise the question on motion for a new trial. Holdsworth v. Tucker, 147 Mass. 572, 18 N. E. 430. In Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, supra, the court said: ‘* * * It has become the settled practice in criminal cases * * * th......
- White v. Pease
-
Restuccia v. Bonner
...have been, but were not, raised at the ariginal trial cannot be presented as of right upon a motion for a new trial. Holdsworth v. Tucker, 147 Mass. 572, 18 N. E. 430;Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 235 Mass. 482, 496, 497, 126 N. E. 841, and cases cited. Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, 2......