Mills v. Magee Carpet Co.

Citation113 N.E. 573,225 Mass. 31
PartiesWAUCANTUCK MILLS v. MAGEE CARPET CO.
Decision Date14 September 1916
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Report from Superior Court, Worcester County; Robert F. Raymond, Judge.

Action by the Waucantuck Mills against the Magee Carpet Company. Verdict for plaintiff. Motion for new trial granted on rehearing thereof. Case reported. Order granting new trial to stand.

F. P. Brady, of Uxbridge, for plaintiff.

M. M. Taylor and G. C. Douglass, both of Worcester, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

The only question presented on this record is whether the motion for a new trial was granted lawfully by the superior court judge.

The action is in contract. The only issue contested before the jury was the liability of the defendant. Opposing counsel agreed in their arguments at the trial and the judge charged the jury in effect that there was no dispute as to damages, and that, if a verdict were returned for the plaintiff, it should be for the sum of $1,200. A verdict was rendered for $204.37. A motion for a new trial was filed seasonably, alleging five grounds of error, the last of which was that the damages awarded were inadequate. The motion was overruled. Within two weeks thereafter the plaintiff moved in writing for a rehearing of the motion. A rehearing was had and the motion then was allowed and a new trial granted. Later the court filed a statement which became a part of the record, of the following tenor:

‘The motion was allowed on the fifth ground alleged. No other ground was discussed or considered, and it appears to the court that the verdict was clearly a compromise verdict and the whole case should be retried.’ St. 1911, c. 501.

No excess of jurisdiction appears. The action of the judge was within his power. The verdict seems to have been erroneous, contrary to the concession of all counsel, and to the instructions of the court, and without support in the evidence. Of course a motion for the rehearing of a motion for a new trial has no standing as matter of right. Com. v. Ruisseau, 140 Mass. 363, 5 N. E. 166. But there is no objection in law to its consideration, if the case has not gone to judgment. It may call to the judge's attention some decisive fact absent from his mind at the moment of making the original entry. It may effect the correction of a mistake or the avoidance of an inadvertence. The power of a court is ample to correct its records so as to make them conform to the facts and to express the decision really intended to be made. Karrick v. Wetmore, 210 Mass. 578, 97 N. E. 92;Randall v. Peerless Motor Car Co., 212 Mass. 352, 386 to 388, 99 N. E. 221;Farris v. St. Paul's Baptist Church, 220 Mass. 356, 107 N. E. 955. In view of the palpable error in the verdict of the jury, the earlier entry of an order overruling the motion for a new trial well may have been through mistake.

But even if there was no mistake and the conclusion of the judge was reached simply through more mature reflection and more careful consideration, there is no error of law. The court has power to reconsider its decision on the same facts, although this is a power rarely exercised. McKinley v. Warren, 218 Mass. 310, 105 N. E. 990;Riggs v. Pursell, 74 N. Y. 370, 379;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Dascalakis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1923
    ...entire change on further reflection and investigation. Commonwealth v. Rice, 216 Mass. 480, 482, 104 N. E. 347;Waucantuck Mills v. Magee Carpet Co. 225 Mass. 31, 113 N. E. 573. [2] The power of a prosecuting officer to enter a nolle prosequi is extensive within its sphere. He acts on his of......
  • Peterson v. Hopson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1940
    ...decided, the power to do so remains in the court until final judgment or decree. Calder v. Haynes, 7 Allen 387;Waucantuck Mills v. Magee Carpet Co., 225 Mass. 31, 33, 113 N.E. 573;Cinamon v. St. Louis Rubber Co., 229 Mass. 33, 37, 118 N.E. 327;Sallinger v. Hughes, 235 Mass. 104, 107, 126 N.......
  • Spiegel v. Beacon Participations, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1937
    ...final finding must be accepted as his ultimate conclusion. In re Boyd, Petitioner, 199 Mass. 262, 85 N.E. 464;Waucantuck Mills v. Magee Carpet Co., 225 Mass. 31, 33, 113 N.E. 573, and cases cited. Commonwealth v. Rice, 216 Mass. 480, 104 N.E. 347;Jamnback v. Aamunkoitto Temperance Society, ......
  • Peterson v. Hopson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1940
    ... ... [306 Mass. 602] ...        Calder v. Haynes, 7 ... Allen, 387. Waucantuck Mills v. Magee Carpet Co. 225 ... Mass. 31, 33. Cinamon v. St. Louis Rubber Co. 229 ... Mass. 33 , ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT