in re Sullivan
| Decision Date | 24 March 1898 |
| Citation | in re Sullivan, 170 Mass. 504, 49 N.E. 916 (Mass. 1898) |
| Parties | In re SULLIVAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Geo. R. Swasey, for petitioner.
OPINION
The only exceptions taken by the petitioner, which are set forth in the petition, were to the refusal of the court to hear an argument upon the motion for a rehearing, and to the order entering the final decree.After the decision of the case, the court was not bound to reconsider the facts, or to entertain or reconsider questions of law involved in the finding, in respect to which no exception had been saved at the hearing.Gaslight Co. v. Bean, 1 Allen, 274;Phillips v. Soule, 6 Allen, 150;Kidney v. Richards,10 Allen, 419;Caverly v. McOwen,126 Mass. 222;Com. v. Morrison,134 Mass. 189;Capron v. Anness,136 Mass. 271;Lynch v. Peabody,137 Mass. 92.No exception to the entry of the final decree was open, under the circumstances.The petition therefore sets forth no ground of exception, and must be dismissed.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
3 cases
-
Nerbonne v. New England S.S. Co.
...cannot ordinarily be required to reconsider upon the same evidence its decision of fact or law. Pingree v. Coffin, 12 Gray, 288, 324;Commonwealth v. Ruisseau, 140 Mass. 363, 5 N. E. 166;
Sullivan v. Bar Association of City of Boston, 170 Mass. 504, 49 N. E. 916;Bar Association of City of Boston v. Casey, 227 Mass. 46, 116 N. E. 541; Clark v. McNeil, 246 Mass. 250, 256, 140 N. E. 922;Barringer v. Northbridge, 266 Mass. 315, 320, 165 N. E. 400;Union... -
Peterson v. Hopson
...Mass. 522, 20 N.E. 114;Menici v. Orton Crane & Shovel Co., 285 Mass. 499, 502, 189 N.E. 839;Nerbonne v. New England Steamship Co., 288 Mass. 508, 510, 193 N.E. 72;
Sullivan v. Boston Bar Association, 170 Mass. 504, 49 N.E. 916. A motion for a new trial or to vacate a judgment need not be entertained when based upon alleged errors of law that either were raised or could have been raised at the trial. Commonwealth v. Morrison, 134 Mass. 189, 190;Garrityexpedient of bringing it forward again, demanding a second ruling, and claiming an exception or appeal from that second ruling. Caverly v. McOwen, 126 Mass. 222, 224; Sullivan v. Boston Bar Association, 170 Mass. 504, 49 N.E. 916;Robbins v. Brockton Street Railway, 180 Mass. 51, 61 N.E. 265;Blackburn v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 201 Mass. 186, 189, 87 N.E. 579;Phillips v. Director General of Railroads, 251 Mass. 263, 268, 147 N.E. 96;Commonwealth... -
Fitch v. Jefferson
...these were motions for a new trial, they were filed too late, under rule 46 of the superior court. Moreover, the rulings asked were all rulings which should have been asked before the verdict was rendered. Sullivan v. Association,
170 Mass. 504, 49 N.E. 916. It seems to us that on the face of the exceptions there was a trial within the meaning of the rule of the superior court and of decisions like that just cited. The presiding judge announced that he should require the petitioner...