Mantho v. Nelson
| Citation | 188 N.E. 599,285 Mass. 156 |
| Parties | MANTHO v. NELSON. |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1934 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; F. J. Donahue, Judge.
Action of tort by James Mantho against Arthur T. Nelson. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions to the denial of his motion for a new trial.
Exceptions overruled.
C. S. Walkup, Jr., of Boston, for plaintiff.
W. H. Nelson and A. Mehlinger, both of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort for conversion. No exceptions were saved at the trial and no exceptionwas taken to the charge. A verdict was returned in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff then filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict (1) was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence, and (2) was against the law and the evidence, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict (3) as matter of law, and (4) as matter of fact. The case comes before us on exceptions to the refusal of the trial judge to allow this motion.
The general rule is that upon a motion to set aside a verdict a judge is not required to pass upon requests which might have been raised at the trial on the merits. Ryan v. Hickey, 240 Mass. 46, 48, 132 N. E. 718;Hallett v. Jordan Marsh Co., 240 Mass. 110, 112, 113, 133 N. E. 191;Lonergan v. American Railway Express Co., 250 Mass. 30, 39, 144 N. E. 756. Commonly a motion for a new trial is addressed solely to the sound discretion of the trial judge. The exercise of that discretion will stand unless it appears to have been abused or to rest upon some error of law. Formal findings of fact need not be made. Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 235 Mass. 482, 494, 495, 126 N. E. 841;Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, 246 Mass. 12, 25, 26, 140 N. E. 470; Petition of Energy Electric Co., 262 Mass. 534, 538, 160 N. E. 278;Vengrow v. Grimes, 274 Mass. 278, 174 N. E. 505. It is not necessary to decide that circumstances may not arise requiring the setting aside of a verdict where no question of law was raised at the trial on the merits and where the verdict appears to have been the result of prejudice or some unwarrantable mistake on the part of the jury. Cunningham v. Magoun, 18 Pick. 13;Lufkin v. Hitchcock, 194 Mass. 231, 235, 80 N. E. 456. Without reviewing the evidence in detail, it is enough to say that no error of law is disclosed on the present record. Malden Trust Co. v. Perlmuter, 278 Mass. 259, 179 N. E. 631;Commonwealth v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Polian
...new trial, or to revive and renew them upon such a motion.’ We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of a new trial. Mantho v. Nelson, 285 Mass. 156, 188 N. E. 599;Commonwealth v. Bader, 285 Mass. 574, 577, 189 N. E. 590;Menici v. Orton Crane & Shovel Co., 285 Mass. 499, 189 N. E. 839;S......
-
Long v. George
...intelligently, could honestly have taken.’ Davis v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 235 Mass. 482, 497, 502, 126 N.E. 841;Mantho v. Nelson, 285 Mass. 156, 188 N.E. 599;Skudris v. Williams, 287 Mass. 568, 192 N.E. 63;Murnane v. MacDonald (Mass.) 2 N.E.(2d) 194. There may be some question how fa......
-
Forte v. Muzi Motors, Inc.
...not required to pass on them on the motion for a new trial. Ryan v. Hickey, 240 Mass. 46, 48, 132 N.E. 718 (1921); Mantho v. Nelson, 285 Mass. 156, 158, 188 N.E. 599 (1934). The plaintiff was aware of the defendant's reliance on the defense of assumption of the risk from the time of the fil......
-
Commonwealth v. Bader
...is not specifically argued. It has no merit, for reasons stated in Commonwealth v. Osman (Mass.) 188 N. E. 226, and Mantho v. Nelson (Mass.) 188 N. E. 599. Judgment ...