Looby v. Looby
| Decision Date | 29 June 1939 |
| Citation | 21 N.E.2d 945,303 Mass. 391 |
| Parties | LOOBY v. LOOBY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Greenhalge, Judge.
Action by Johanna J. Looby against Mary E. Looby for damages for the unlawful confinement of the plaintiff in a hospital for the insane. To review a finding for the plaintiff, defendant brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.E. M. Curry and C. M. Murdock, both of Boston, for plaintff.
S. Maylor, of Boston, for defendant.
The judge of the Superior Court, who heard this case without a jury, found for the plaintiff in her action of tort, brought to recover damages from the defendant for the unlawful confinement of the plaintiff in a hospital for the insane. In a statement of facts the judge found that the defendant, acting in conjunction with others, procured the confinement of the plaintiff ‘as charged in Count 1 of the declaration.’ This count alleged that the defendant conspired, with the others referred to in the finding of the judge, unlawfully and without warrant to confine the plaintiff in a hospital for the insane, and that in pursuance of the conspiracy the plaintiff was so confined contrary to law, without any reasonable and proper cause whatever, and against the will of the plaintiff. The judge also found that, at the time of her confinement, the plaintiff was not insane or in any need of immediate restraint or treatment on account of her mental condition. Other findings were to the effect that the representations made by the defendant and one of the other alleged conspirators to the third alleged conspirator and to the physician called to examine the plaintiff were either without foundation in fact or so exaggerated as to give a distorted and untrue picture of the acts and mental condition of the plaintiff, and that the examination by the physician was so arranged as to present the plaintiff under unfavorable and unfair conditions. The defendant filed requests for eight rulings of law, five of which were refused. The only reference in the bill of exceptions to any action on the part of the defendant with respect to the refusal by the judge to give any of the five requests is as follows: ‘The defendant, being aggrieved by the foregoing ruling of the Court upon her requests for rulings of law, and being aggrieved by the finding for the plaintiff on Count No. 1, prays that this, her Bill of Exceptions, be allowed.’
No questions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Underwood
...Commonwealth v. MacGregor, supra, 319 Mass. 463, 66 N.E.2d 356; Herrick v. Waitt, 224 Mass. 415, 417, 113 N.E. 205; Looby v. Looby, 303 Mass. 391, 392, 21 N.E.2d 945. The defendant was represented at his trial by a lawyer who has had considerable experience in the trial of criminal cases. H......