S. Albertson Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1961 |
| Citation | 173 N.E.2d 267,342 Mass. 326 |
| Parties | S. ALBERTSON COMPANY, Inc. v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert P. Springer, Boston (David B. Goldberg with him), for plaintiff.
Daniel F. Featherston, Jr., Boston, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WILLIAMS, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and SPIEGEL, JJ.
This action against a common carrier for damages due to delayed delivery of a carload of apples was originally brought in the Superior Court, and then transferred to the Municipal Court of the City of Boston under G.L. c. 231, § 102C, inserted by St.1958, c. 369, § 3. After trial the Municipal Court judge found for the plaintiff in the amount of $201.50. The defendant, without seeking a report to the Appellate Division, requested retransfer to the Superior Court. Upon retransfer a statement of agreed facts was submitted, the judge found for the plaintiff in the same amount, and the defendant excepted. As part of the same document a summary of the previous proceedings somewhat as set forth above preceded the statement of agreed facts.
The defendant argues that the agreed facts amounted to a case stated, and that the plaintiff had thereby stipulated itself out of its advantage gained in the finding of the Municipal Court judge which under § 102C was prima facie evidence in the Superior Court. We cannot accept this argument. We do not have the question whether parties after a trial in a District Court under § 102C may agree that its result shall be placed at naught. The reference to the prior proceedings and to § 102C embraced as a fact the finding for the plaintiff and its effect as prima facie evidence. This case is largely controlled by Lubell v. First Nat. Stores, Inc., Mass., 172 N.E.2d 689, 1 just decided. We shall not yield to the importunity of the defendant that we reverse our decision in that case.
The Superior Court judge could find for the plaintiff upon the prima facie evidence of the finding of the Municipal Court judge.
Exceptions overruled.
1 Mass.Adv.Sh. (1961) 351.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. Edgeco, Inc.
...favor regardless of other evidence introduced at trial in the Superior Court. G.L. c. 231, § 102C. S. Albertson Co. v. Great Northern Ry., 342 Mass. 326, 327, 173 N.E.2d 267 (1961). Methuen Constr. Co. v. J & A Builders, Inc., 4 Mass.App . 397, 401, 349 N.E.2d 357 (1976). O'Brion, Russell &......
-
Methuen Const. Co., Inc. v. J & A Builders, Inc.
...Court, a verdict for the plaintiff appears unwarranted, or even wrong, as a matter of law. See S. Albertson Co., Inc. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 342 Mass. 326, 327, 173 N.E.2d 267 (1961). The finding of the District Court presented a mixed question of law and fact as to the coverage of the ......
-
Henry v. Mansfield Beauty Academy, Inc.
...161, 172 N.E.2d 689; Newgent v. Colonial Contractors & Builders, Inc., 348 Mass. 582, 204 N.E.2d 922. See S. Albertson Co., Inc. v. Great No. Ry. Co., 342 Mass. 326, 173 N.E.2d 267. To be admissible upon retransfer to the Superior Court and to be entitled to become prima facie evidence as p......
-
Nuger Sales & Service, Inc. v. Pioneer Credit Corp.
...(as amended through St.1960, c. 303). See Lubell v. First Natl. Stores, Inc. 342 Mass. 161, 172 N.E.2d 689; S. Albertson Co. Inc. v. Great No. Ry. 342 Mass. 326, 173 N.E.2d 267. After a trial on the merits the District Court judge, on February 21, 1961, filed a decision in which he found fo......