Town of Lakeville v. City of Cambridge
| Decision Date | 26 November 1940 |
| Citation | 307 Mass. 433,30 N.E.2d 266 |
| Parties | TOWN OF LAKEVILLE v. CITY OF CAMBRIDGE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
October 11, 1940.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., DONAHUE, DOLAN COX, & RONAN, JJ.
Needy Person. Settlement. Domicil. Practice, Civil, Requests, rulings and instructions, Auditor: findings.
A request for a ruling, which in effect would have been a ruling that a finding for the plaintiff was required, properly was denied where the evidence presented a question of fact. A requested ruling, based on G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 116, Section 116 Section
5, that the time during which a needy person was under the care and direction of a certain State institution or any officer thereof should not be counted in deciding whether he had lost a previous settlement or had acquired a new settlement, justifiably was denied in view of a finding which, properly interpreted meant that he had not been under the care and direction of the institution or officer during the determinative period.
At the hearing of an action upon the report of an auditor whose findings were not final and on other evidence, where a question of fact on a determinative issue thereby was presented, a request for a ruling that the "auditor's general conclusion imports a finding of the facts necessary to support it," properly was denied in the circumstances.
CONTRACT. Writ in the Superior Court dated September 6, 1935. The case was heard by Forte, J., at a trial following the decision reported in 305 Mass. 256 .
The case was submitted on briefs. F. Clark, Jr., for the plaintiff.
J. A. DeGuglielmo, Assistant City Solicitor, for the defendant.
This is an action of contract brought by the town of Lakeville to recover from the city of Cambridge amounts spent by the plaintiff in furnishing immediate comfort and relief to one Earley, his wife and her four children by a former husband between September 14, 1933, and September 6, 1935, on the ground that said Earley then had a settlement in the defendant city. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 117, Section 14. It is conceded that the settlements of the wife of said Earley and of her children were the same as his settlement.
The case was tried before an auditor whose findings of fact were not to be final. The auditor made subsidiary findings and a general finding -- not purporting to be based solely on subsidiary findings -- that "Earley and his wife and the minor children of his wife had a settlement in Cambridge during the time the aid was rendered," and that the defendant owes the plaintiff the amount sought to be recovered. The case was then tried to a jury on the auditor's report and other evidence. The trial judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The exception of the defendant to the direction of a verdict was sustained in Lakeville v. Cambridge, 305 Mass. 256 . This court there pointed out in substance that the burden of proof that the settlement of Earley had been lost by his living in a sanatorium in Lakeville was upon the defendant, but that it could not be said that a jury could not have inferred from the facts stated in the auditor's report -- and the other evidence did not tend to vary any of the findings therein -- that this burden of proof was sustained. Consequently there was error in withdrawing the case from the consideration of the jury. Page 260.
Thereafter the case was tried before a judge sitting without a jury on the auditor's report and -- by agreement of the parties -- on the evidence of two witnesses, as set forth in the bill of exceptions previously before the court. The judge denied certain requests for rulings made by the plaintiff and in denying them filed the following statement -- obviously a finding of fact, though inaptly described in the bill of exceptions as a "memorandum," see Commonwealth v. O'Neil, 233 Mass. 535 , 543 -- "I find that Earley lived in Lakeville with the intention of remaining for an indefinite period and without any fixed or certain purpose to return to Cambridge; that while living at the Sanatorium as an employee, he had no fixed or certain purpose to return to Cambridge; and that during the period in question, he was not in any manner under the care or protection of the Sanatorium or of an officer thereof." The judge found for the defendant.
The plaintiff claimed exceptions to the denial of its requests for rulings, to the "opinion, ruling, or memorandum of the judge," and to the finding for the defendant. The plaintiff properly makes no contention that the exceptions to the so called "memorandum" and to the finding for the defendant have any standing (see Stowell v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. 288 Mass. 555, 556-557; Leshefsky v. American Employers' Ins. Co. 293 Mass. 164, 166-167; Ross v. Colonial Provision Co. Inc. 299 Mass. 39 , 41), and does not argue them. The plaintiff contends, however, that there was error in the denial of certain of its requests for rulings. We consider such of these requests as have been argued.
There was no error in the denial of the requests for rulings numbered six and sixteen, respectively, to the effect that even if Earley lost his settlement in Cambridge or acquired a settlement in Lakeville after September 6, 1935, the plaintiff "is nevertheless entitled to recover in full." By granting either of these requests the trial judge would have ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in this action. Such a ruling of law could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial