Sullivan v. Judges of Superior Court
| Decision Date | 28 May 1930 |
| Citation | 171 N.E. 490,271 Mass. 435 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN v. JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.
Petition by Nora F. Sullivan for writ of prohibition to be directed to the Judges of the Superior Court. A single justice dismissed the petition, and petitioner brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
B. J. Killion and R. E. Sullivan, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
E. K. Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.
This is a petition for a writ of prohibition. The petitioner alleges that she is plaintiff in an action of tort now pending in the Superior Court and already assigned for trial; that the defendant therein filed a motion requesting the court to determine her mental condition in accordance with G. L. c. 123, § 99; and that the motion is being entertained and evidence heard thereon in the Superior Court. The respondents demurred.
The case comes before us on exceptions wherein it is said that at the hearing before the single justice no evidence was heard, the case being presented on statements of counsel for the petitioner and on exhibits introduced by him. That was irregular. On a demurrer only questions of law raised by the causes assigned in the demurrer are proper for consideration. No evidence by testimony, by statements of counsel or by exhibits rightly can be received. The bill of exceptions when critically analyzed sets forth nothing except matters open for consideration on the demurrer.
It is provided by G. L. c. 123, § 99, that This statute, although placed in the General Laws under a heading ‘Insane Prisoners, etc.,’ is equally applicable to civil as to criminal cases. That is apparent from the original act which was St. 1918, c. 153. It was there phrased in general terms and was not confined to criminal cases. The inclusion of this provision in said section 99 did not work any change in its scope. Main v. County of Plymouth, 223 Mass. 66, 111 N. E. 694. In this respect the case at bar is distinguishable from Boston & Maine Railroad v. Billerica, 262 Mass. 439, 449, 160 N. E. 419. The statute provides a simple, efficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Widrick
...is capable of conducting the litigation [or of testifying] by reason of minority or mental incapacity." Sullivan v. Superior Court, 271 Mass. 435, 437, 171 N.E. 490 (1930). This interpretation applies with equal force to G.L. c. 123, § 19, inserted by St. 1970, c. 888, § 4, because it is a ......
-
In re Guardianship of Zaltman
...ward's competence, Gershaw v. Gershfield, 52 Mass.App.Ct. 81, 96, 751 N.E.2d 424 (2001), quoting from Sullivan v. Judges of the Superior Ct., 271 Mass. 435, 437, 171 N.E. 490 (1930), was error. The "crucial issue" in such proceedings is "whether [the ward] was currently [emphasis in origina......
-
Com. v. Nieves
...should appoint a guardian ad litem. 9. A judge has inherent authority to appoint a guardian ad litem. Sullivan v. Judges of the Superior Court, 271 Mass. 435, 437, 171 N.E. 490 (1930). In addition, pursuant to a general statute, a judge may appoint a guardian if, unlike this case, there is ......
-
Com. v. Knowlton
...is made that such incapacity exists to cause some competent person to be appointed to conduct the litigation." Sullivan v. Superior Court, 271 Mass. 435, 437, 171 N.E. 490 (1930). See Welch v. Fox, 205 Mass. 113, 114, 91 N.E. 145 (1910). Cf. Hermanson v. Seppala, 255 Mass. 607, 611, 152 N.E......