In re Thorndike
| Decision Date | 17 April 1925 |
| Citation | 147 N.E. 672,252 Mass. 154 |
| Parties | Petition of THORNDIKE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition by Carolyn A. Thorndike for establishment of exceptions. On motion to dismiss. Motion granted, and petition dismissed.
See, also, Petition of Thorndike, 244 Mass. 429, 139 N. E. 208.
Carolyn A. Thorndike, pro se.
R. Spring, of Boston, for respondent.
This is a petition for the establishment of exceptions. The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition on several grounds, one being that the petition was not seasonably filed.
[1] It is alleged in the petition that on January 6, 1925, the petitioner was present at a hearing before the judge of the superior court when her exceptions were disallowed by the judge; order of his disallowance being entered on the docket on the same day and notice sent to her. Being present when the exceptions were disallowed, that was notice to her. It is provided by rule 6 of the rules for regulation of practice before the full court that a petition for the establishment of exceptions disallowed by a judge shall be filed within 20 days after notice of such disallowance. On the allegations of the petition the time limited expired on January 26, 1925. The facts upon this point are that, on January 26, 1925, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, this being the twentieth day after such notice, the petitioner came into the office of the clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for the commonwealth, was assisted about fastening together loose sheets of paper which constituted the petition or a part of it, and then handed the petition with the papers to an employee in the office without payment of an entry fee and without saying anything about filing them. She left the office before the attention of the clerk could be called to this matter, although he was in an adjoining room. No indorsement was made on the papers at that time by the clerk or by anyone connected with his office, and no docket entry concerning them was amde. A letter was sent to the petitioner at once by special delivery, stating that an entry fee was required and that the petition would be given a number and entered when an entry fee was paid. The petitioner came to the clerk's office on the afternoon of the next day, said she had not received the letter and was not then prepared to pay the entry fee. On January 31, 1925, she paid to the clerk the entry fee. This was 25 days after the notice. Then, under that date, for the first time a filing was indorsed on the petition. These facts are shown by a certificate of the clerk. They are not open to dispute. No attempt was made to controvert them at the hearing before us.
[2] The clerk did not enter the petition on the records of the court until January 31, 1925. It is required by G. L. c. 262, § 4, that an entry fee of $3 shall be paid to the clerk by the party entering a petition like the present. The clerk was not required to receive the petition for filing until the entry fee was paid. It is manifest that the clerk did not receive the petition for filing until the entry fee was paid. He did not enter it on the records of the court until then. He did not follow the course pursued in Clemens Electrical Manuf. Co. v. Walton, 168 Mass. 304, 47 N. E. 102, where the desire of the person presenting the petition to file and enter the petition immediately was explained to the person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Thorndike
...1926. OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Petitions by Caroline Thorndike to establish truth of exceptions. Petitions dismissed. See, also, 252 Mass. 154, 147 N. E. 672.Caroline Thorndike, pro se.R. Spring, of Boston, for respondent.RUGG, C. J. These are two petitions to establish the truth of excepti......
-
Radway v. Selectmen of Dennis
...fees. Their omission to do so within the time required in the circumstances disclosed cannot be excused or condoned. Thorndike, Petitioner, 252 Mass. 154, 157, 147 N. E. 672, and cases there collected. The most that can be said of the act of the board of selectmen is that the copy of the or......
-
City of Revere v. Special Judge of Dist. Court of Chelsea
...135 Mass. 580;Cheney v. Assessors of Dover, 205 Mass. 501, 91 N. E. 1005. Its signification is well understood. Thorndike, Petr., 252 Mass. 154, 147 N. E. 672. Presumably a different purpose was intended by the use of ‘bring’ rather than ‘file’ in the statute controlling the case at bar. Th......
-
In re Petition of Thorndike
...been before this court on four petitions to establish exceptions, two reported respectively in 244 Mass. 429, 139 N. E. 208, and 252 Mass. 154, 147 N. E. 672, and two reported in 254 Mass. 256, 150 N. E. 296, and on another such petition dismissed on February 2, 1926, without opinion, on th......