Huikari v. Eastman

Decision Date15 June 1972
Citation285 N.E.2d 114,362 Mass. 867
PartiesEric HUIKARI v. Allen EASTMAN (and a companion case).
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

George C. Decas, Middleboro, for Allen Eastman.

Edward H. Stevens, Brockton, for Eric Huikari.

Before TAURO, C.J., and REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and HENNESSEY, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

In 1959 Eastman sold some cranberries grown by him to Huikari. These and cranberries from other sources were then sold and shipped by Huikari to a canning company in four separate shipments. Huikari now seeks recovery for $6,102.25 paid Eastman for his berries included in the first two shipments, alleging the berries were contaminated. In a cross action Eastman seeks recovery of $2,166 for his berries included in the third shipment. There is no issue before us on the fourth shipment. A single trial of the cross actions in the District Court resulted in a finding for Huikari for $6,102.25 in he action brought by him, and a finding in his favor in the action brought against him. Eastman claimed a report to the Appellate Division in both cases. The cases are here on Eastman's appeals from the Appellate Division's dismissal of both reports. There was no error. In both cases the trial judge found that (a) Eastman had sprayed his cranberry bogs with a chemical (amino-triazole), (b) the berries were thus contaminated and made unmarketable and unfit for human consumption, and (c) the berries were seized and destroyed by Federal authorities. To avoid the dispositive, effect of these findings, eastman seeks review of the judge's denial of several requests filed by him and labeled 'requests for rulings.' Despite their label, several of them are requests for findings of fact on which the Judge's action is not reviewable. The scope of review open to a litigant in the Appellate Division, and on appeal therefrom to this court, is limited to 'matters of law.' G.L. c. 231, § 108, as amended, and § 109. Duggan v. Matthew Cummings Co., 277 Mass. 445, 449, 178 N.E. 825; Butler v. Cromartie, 339 Mass. 4, 6, 157 N.E.2d 649; James J. Derba, Inc. v. Hamilton Serv., Inc., 355 Mass. 127, 130, 243 N.E.2d 178. To the extent that the requests were for rulings of law, the judge's action thereon was free from error. Eastman gained nothing by attempting to raise the same questions by a 'Motion to Vacate Finding' after the judge's initial decision of the case against him. The admission of uncertified copies of records...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Coyne v. John S. Tilley Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • November 5, 1974
    ...355 Mass. 127, 130, 243 N.E.2d 178, 181, (1969). See also Butler v. Cromartie, 339 Mass. 4, 5--6, 157 N.E.2d 649 (1959); Huikari v. Eastman, Mass., 285 N.E.2d 114 (1972).6 There is no direct evidence of what caused the ladder to collapse.a. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1972) 1191, 1193--1194.b. Mass.App.C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT