In re Brighton Dressed Meat Co.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1933
• Citation: 188 N.E. 226,284 Mass. 530
• Parties: In re BRIGHTON DRESSED MEAT CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

284 Mass. 530

188 N.E. 226

In re BRIGHTON DRESSED MEAT CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Dec. 6, 1933.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; O'Connell, Judge.

Action of tort in the superior court brought against the Brighton Dressed Meat Company. At the hearing by the judge without a jury, there was a finding for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,281. On petition to establish exceptions alleged to have been saved by the defendant.

Petition dismissed.

A. G. Sleeper, of Boston, for petitioner.

J. E. Macy, of Boston, for respondent.

RUGG, Chief Justice.

This petition to establish the truth of exceptions is based on an alleged oral understanding or verbal statement made during or at the close of a trial before a judge sitting without a jury touching requested finding and rulings not then passed upon but where decision was reserved and rendered some time later. Due notice of the rulings and decision at a later time made by the judge was given to the petitioner but it filed no writing concerning the same with the clerk. The final sentence of rule 72 of the superior court (1932), which governs the case at bar, is in these words: ‘Exceptions to any other opinion, ruling,direction or judgment made in the absence of counsel shall be taken by a writing filed with the clerk within three days after the receipt from the clerk of notice thereof.’ This rule is unequivocal and mandatory. Its effect is to do away with the possibility of misunderstandings likely to arise in the absence of explicit written statements. It renders of no legal value anticipatory verbal arrangements for exceptions to be taken when future adverse rulings not then announced may be made. There is nothing in Leyland v. Pingree, 134 Mass. 367,Newton v. Worcester, 169 Mass. 516, 48 N. E. 274, or Jones v. Newton Street Railway, 186 Mass. 113, 71 N. E. 114, which affords support to the petitioner's contention.

Petition dismissed.