Nat'l Dev. Co. v. Gray

• Decision Date: 01 December 1943
• Citation: 315 Mass. 127,51 N.E.2d 960
• Parties: NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO. v. GRAY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

315 Mass. 127

51 N.E.2d 960

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CO.

v.GRAY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

Dec. 1, 1943.

Report from Superior Court, Essex County; Greenhalge, Justice.

Suit by the National Development Company against Ellen Gray and another, administrators, and another to require defendants to assign certain patent rights, for an injunction and for an accounting. On report from the Superior Court.

Report dismissed.

Before FIELD, C. J., and LUMMUS, DOLAN, COX, and RONAN, JJ.

H. D. Linscott, of Lynn, for plaintiff.

L. Withington and L. G. Miller, both of Boston, for defendants.

COX, Justice.

The plaintiff, in its bill in equity, asks that the defendants be required to assign to it certain patent rights, that they be enjoined from making any use of these rights, and for an accounting. Such evidence as was taken is reported. The trial judge made a ‘Statement of Findings, Rulings and Order for a Decree,’ in which, however, he stated that he made ‘no order for a decree, interlocutory or final, for two reasons, first because at the hearing the parties agreed that the question of damages should be left open, if there was liability, to be further heard by the court or referred to a master and second because the question is not free from doubt and the parties may prefer to have the liability passed upon by the Supreme Judicial Court before any hearing upon damages is had, in which case * * * [he was] prepared to report the question under the statute.’ The judge also stated: ‘I think that the plaintiff is entitled to relief’ by way of assignment of patent rights and injunction and also to an accounting. The record contains a statement entitled ‘Report’ which is signed by the judge and in which this appears: ‘This clause came on to be heard and after hearing and argument I made certain findings of fact and rulings but made no order for decree for reasons stated and I now report the case for the consideration of the Supreme Judicial Court upon the pleadings, the evidence and my findings of fact and rulings of law, such decree to be entered as justice and equity may require.’ Apart from orders as to the use of the exhibits, nothing else appears in the ‘Report.’ The record contains nothing that relates to the matter of an accounting.

G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 214, § 30, provides for the report, by a judge of this court or the Superior Court, of an interlocutory decree or order to this court in certain circumstances. But no decree or order was here made, and it is apparent that this failure was intentional. It is apparent that the ‘Report’ was not made in pursuance of the power conferred by section 30. Section 31 of said c. 214 provides that a justice of either court by whom a case is heard ‘for final decree’ may reserve and report the evidence and ‘all questions of law therein’ for the consideration of the full court; and thereupon like proceedings shall be had ‘as upon appeals from final decrees.’ Apart from these statutory provisions, suits in equity can come to this court from the Superior Court only by way of appeal.

The case of Dunlop v. Claussen, 313 Mass. 715, 48 N.E.2d 919, was brought to this court on a so-called reservation and report under G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 215, § 13, a statute closely similar to section 31 of said c. 214, but which relates only...