Mazzuchelli v. Seretto

• Decision Date: 04 December 1925
• Citation: 254 Mass. 159,149 N.E. 707
• Parties: MAZZUCHELLI et al. v. SERETTO et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

254 Mass. 159

149 N.E. 707

MAZZUCHELLI et al.

v.SERETTO et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Dec. 4, 1925.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Hammond, Judge.

Suit in equity by Paul A. Mazzuchelli and another against Michael Seretto and another to determine and establish amount of plaintiff's claim against defendant named. From a decree for plaintiffs, the Maryland Casualty Company appealed. On motion to dismiss case. Appeal dismissed.

L. Luftman, of Dorchester, for petitioner Tucker Concrete Form co.

E. I. Taylor, of Boston, for Maryland Casualty Co.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a suit to determine and establish the amount of the plaintiffs' claim against Michael Seretto, who had entered into a contract with the city of Boston for the construction of granite composite bleachers, and for the payment of the same by the city and by the Maryland Casualty Company, the surety on a bond given by Seretto to the city. The suit was brought for the benefit also of other creditors of Seretto who had performed labor or furnished material in the construction of the bleachers. Ten different intervening petitions were filed. The case was heard by a master and his report was confirmed. Final decree was entered on February 5, 1925. The Maryland Casualty Company appealed on February 9, 1925. The case was entered in this court on November 4, 1925. Motion has been made to dismiss the case, because not entered in this court ‘forthwith’ after the appeal from the final decree, as required by G. L. c. 214, § 19.

The record as printed contains 36 pages. It was not stated at the bar how long a time was required for the printing of the record, but no contention by the appellant is based on that factor. The appellant contends that the record was not ready for printing when the appeal was filed, because (1) it was allowed by the court on September 12, 1925, as of February 4, 1925, to file an answer to the intervening petition of one of the appellees; and (2) it filed on October 8, 1925, a stipulation signed by 7 out of 10 intervening petitioners to the effect that ‘they are no longer interested in the proceedings, and that their intervening petitions, the answers and pleadings relating thereto, need not be printed and made a part of the record.’ The inference is that no direction and deposit for the preparation of the record was given until September 12, 1925, or possibly until October 8, 1925. It is manifest that the record presented might...