Porter v. Boston Storage Warehouse Co.
Citation | 238 Mass. 298 |
Parties | ROSE M. PORTER v. BOSTON STORAGE WAREHOUSE COMPANY. |
Decision Date | 06 April 1921 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
March 22, 1921.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., BRALEY, DE COURCY, PIERCE, & CARROLL, JJ.
Practice, Civil Report, Entry of judgment. Rules of Court. Judgment. Superior Court.
If, following an order of the Superior Court that an action therein pending after a verdict for the defendant should "stand" until the submission of a draft report, there were seventeen successive extensions of the time within which a draft report should be presented, extending over more than three and a half years, a draft report finally is presented more than a year after the expiration of the last of such extensions of time, the court has no jurisdiction under G.L.c. 231, Section 111, and Rule 55 of the Superior Court (1915) to allow such a report or to report the case.
If, in an action of contract in the Superior Court, in which a verdict had been found for the defendant by order of the trial judge and the time for the filing of exceptions to such order had elapsed a time was fixed by order of the judge within which a draft report should be presented to him, which time was extended several times, and no draft report was presented within the time so extended and no further extension of time was granted, the action automatically went to judgment under G.L.c. 235,
Section 1, and Rule 57 of the Superior Court (1915), although no actual entry to that effect was made by the clerk of the court.
CONTRACT for a commission alleged to have been earned in procuring customers for the purchase of real estate of the defendant. Writ dated December 14, 1912.
The plaintiff acted for herself in signing the declaration and entering the action. Two counsel successively appeared for and were discharged by her from that time until January 14, 1914 the action in the meantime being tried in the Superior Court before Bell, J., when, on June 11, 1913, a verdict was ordered for the defendant. After January 14, 1914, the plaintiff acted pro se until just before the filing of the report of the judge of the Superior Court, as stated below.
There were two extensions of the time for the filing of exceptions, the last extension expiring on January 12, 1914. Two days later the plaintiff moved that the case be reported to this court. On March 13, 1915, it was ordered that the case "stand until draft of report is submitted to Bell, J., which must be before June 1, 1915." There were seventeen successive extensions of the time for the presentation of a draft report, the last of which was made on September 28, 1918, and expired on February 15, 1919. On February 12, 1920, the plaintiff filed a "petition" that the time of filing a draft report be extended to April 1, 1920, and on June 11, 1920, a motion that Bell, J., allow a draft report. On July 2, 1920, the "plaintiff having presented a draft of a report," it was ordered that the case This time was extended twice, the final extension being to February 1, 1921. On January 20, 1921, the action was reported to this court by Bell, J., who stated therein:
At the request of a judge of the Superior Court, a short time previous to the date when the report was filed, W. M. Noble, Esquire, for the first time acted in behalf of the plaintiff.
In this court the defendant moved that the report be dismissed. G.L.c. 231 Section 111, is as follows:
R.L.c. 177, Section 1 (now G.L.c. 235, Section 1), read as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krinsky v. Stevens Coal Sales Co.
... ... 233 ... Sherman v. Werby, ... 280 Mass. 157 ... Summers v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust ... Co. 301 Mass. 167, 168 ... The ... Nugent v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co. 238 Mass. 221 ... Porter v. Boston Storage Warehouse Co. 238 Mass ... 298 ... Alpert v. Mercury ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Cronin
...Co. v. Gloucester, 228 Mass. 519, 117 N. E. 924;Walters v. Jackson & Newton Co., 231 Mass. 247, 120 N. E. 688;Porter v. Boston Storage Warehouse Co., 238 Mass. 298, 130 N. E. 502. ‘The trend of all our decisions has been to confine the power of reporting cases and the scope of the authority......
-
Cohen v. Indus. Bank & Trust Co.
...Railway, 194 Mass. 328, 80 N. E. 461;Nugent v. Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 238 Mass. 221, 130 N. E. 488;Porter v. Boston Storage Warehouse Co., 238 Mass. 298, 301, 130 N. E. 502, and cases cited; Alpert v. Mercury Publishing Co. (Mass.) 172 N. E. 221. That principle does not aid the plaint......
-
Ahern v. Towle
... ... the City of Boston, setting forth verbatim all his requests ... for rulings, specifying ... should be done. Porter v. Boston Storage Warehouse ... Co. 238 Mass. 298 , 301. Home Finance ... ...