Wilson v. Checker Taxi Co
| Decision Date | 26 May 1928 |
| Citation | 263 Mass. 425,161 N.E. 803 |
| Parties | WILSON v. CHECKER TAXI CO. CARLSON v. SAME. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division.
Actions by Alma Wilson and Hildegarde Carlson against the Checker Taxi Company. After an adverse decision, defendant petitioned for the establishment of reports disallowed by the trial judge. From an order of Appellate Division dismissing the petitions, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Innes, Cottrell & Myron and John F. Myron, all of Boston, for appellant.
A. F. Converse, of Boston, for appellees.
These are petitions for the establishment of reports disallowed by the trial judge of the municipal court of the city of Boston. Each petition sets out questions of law alleged to have been raised at the trial of the case on its merits and disallowance of the claim for report by the trial judge. The appellate division in each case made an order, ‘Petition dismissed.’ From that order the defendant appealed. No report of evidence or of rulings of law is in the record.
It is provided by rule 40 of the Rules of the Municipal Court of the City of Boston (1922) that:
* * *’
This is a valid rule.
Each plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the petition to establish the report on four different grounds. One of these grounds was ‘because the alleged copy of the petition and affidavit delivered to the plaintiff's attorney dos not contain a copy of any signature thereto.’ Manifestly, if facts were found to support this ground, the petition for the report could not be established. Thorndike, Petitioner, 244 Mass. 429, 139 N. E. 208. There is nothing in the record to indicate that such facts were not found.
Rule 40 of the Municipal Court in conjunction with G. L. c. 231, § 108, means that the truth of the facts recited in the report as requested by the petition shall be passed upon finally by the appellate division or the judge or judges assigned therefor, and in no other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burick v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
...c. 231, § 108; Cohen v. Berkowitz, 215 Mass. 68, 102 N.E. 124;Sawsik v. Ciborowski, 256 Mass. 583, 152 N.E. 882;Wilson v. Checker Taxi Co., 263 Mass. 425, 161 N.E. 803;Patterson v. Ciborowski, 277 Mass. 260, 266, 179 N.E. 161;Squires v. Toye (Mass.) 196 N.E. 927. Orders of Appellate Division ...
-
Calcagno v. P. H. Graham & Sons Co.
... ... Cohen v. Berkowitz, 215 Mass. 68 ... Sawsik v. Ciborowski, 256 Mass. 583 ... Wilson ... v. Checker Taxi Co. 263 Mass. 425 , 426. Patterson ... v. Ciborowski, ... [313 Mass. 366] ... ...
-
Hodgerney v. Baker
...Dutton v. Bennett, 256 Mass. 397, 152 N.E. 621. The cases of Petition of Thorndike, 244 Mass. 429, 139 N.E. 208;Wilson v. Checker Taxi Co., 263 Mass. 425,167 N.E. 803;In re Thorndike, petitioner, 270 Mass. 334, 170 N.E. 67, and other cases cited in the defendant's brief deal with a petition......
-
Walsh v. Feinstein
...of Thorndike, 252 Mass. 154, 157, 147 N. E. 672, and cases cited. O'Neil v. Boston, 257 Mass. 414, 153 N. E. 884;Wilson v. Checker Taxi Co., 263 Mass. 425, 161 N. E. 803. There is nothing in Gloucester Mutual Fishing Ins. Co. v. Hall, 210 Mass. 332, 96 N. E. 679, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 348;Dutton......