Sylvester v. Hubley
| Decision Date | 21 October 1892 |
| Citation | 157 Mass. 306,32 N.E. 166 |
| Parties | SYLVESTER v. HUBLEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Edward Bicknell, for plaintiff.
B.A Potter and H.W. Aiken, for defendant.
The power of the court to grant reviews in civil actions is expressed in very broad and comprehensive terms. When judgment is rendered, the supreme judicial court or the superior court "may, on petition, grant a review on such terms as it deems reasonable." Pub.St. c. 187, §§ 22 25. The question whether to grant a review, and, if so, on what terms, is addressed largely to the discretion of the judge. This discretion should be exercised in such a way as to promote an orderly and proper administration of justice, and not to encourage carelessness, ignorance, and laxity of practice in the conduct of cases in courts. Thayer v. Goddard, 19 Pick. 60; Brewer v. Holmes, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 288. A decision granting or dismissing a petition for a writ of review cannot be set aside by the full court on exceptions, unless it violates some rule of law. Insurance Co. v. Winslow, 3 Gray, 415; Boston v. Robbins, 116 Mass. 313. In the present case the only exception taken was to the refusal of the court to rule that the petition could not be maintained. The ground relied on at the argument before us, is that the evidence does not warrant a finding of any misunderstanding, accident, or mistake, and that the petitioner is obliged to rest his application on the negligence or misconduct of his attorney. It is argued, as a matter of law, that it is not in the power of the court to grant a review where the judgment is rendered on a default imputable to the negligence or misconduct of the petitioner's attorney, and authorities are cited from other jurisdictions, under different statutes, some of which tend to support the respondent's contention. Moody v. Dick, 4 Nev. & M. 348; Breach v. Casterton, 7 Bing. 224; Gwilt v. Crawley, 8 Bing. 144; Barrow v. Jones, 1 J.J. Marsh, 470.
It is true, as a general rule, that a review should not be granted when the petitioner's only cause of complaint grows out of the negligence or misconduct of his attorney, but he should be left to seek his remedy against him who is responsible for the wrong. Any other rule would tend to fraud and to laxity of practice, greatly to the detriment and delay of honest suitors. On the other hand, we are not prepared to lay down an absolute rule of law that in no case can a review be granted where the error complained of was due to the negligence or misconduct of the petitioner's attorney. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Quincy v. Brooks-Skinner, Inc.
... ... Hodsdon, 242 Mass. 302, 303, 136 N.E. 108; Weeks ... v. Adamson, 106 Mass. 514, 517; City of Boston v ... Robbins, 116 Mass. 313, 315; Sylvester v ... Hubley, 157 Mass. 306, 308, 32 N.E. 166; Stillman v ... Whittemore, 165 Mass. 234, 235, 42 N.E. 1126; ... Stillman v. Donovan, 170 Mass ... ...
-
Kravetz v. Lipofsky
...therefrom. A ruling of that nature would have been sound and pertinent to the evidence; but no such request was made. Sylvester v. Hubley, 157 Mass. 306, 32 N.E. 166;Manzi v. Carlson, 278 Mass. 267, 270, 180 N.E. 134. That was not a request for a ruling of law; it involved also a finding of......
-
Robinson v. Lyndonville Creamery Ass'n
...and not to encourage carelessness, ignorance,’ undue delay, or perversity in the conduct of cases in the courts. Sylvester v. Hubley, 157 Mass. 306, 308, 32 N. E. 166. It cannot rightly be granted unless the petitioner shows that he has a meritorious cause which requires the further attenti......
-
Manzi v. Carlson
...trial judge, that ‘they relate to rulings of law and are in my opinion contrary to the opinion of Knowlton, J. in Sylvester v. Hubley, 157 Mass. 306, at page 308, 32 N. E. 166. I am governed by them to the extent indicated in the opinion above stated. In the case at bar, in view of my findi......