Yetten v. Conroy
| Decision Date | 25 February 1896 |
| Citation | 42 N.E. 1130,165 Mass. 238 |
| Parties | YETTEN v. CONROY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Allin & Mayberry, for appellant.
M.J Creed and J. Porter Crosby, for respondent.
This is a petition filed in the municipal court of Boston to have a judgment vacated under St.1893, c. 396, § 33, and St.1894, c 431. The question is whether, in such a case, the parties have a right of appeal from the decision of the justice of the municipal court. Section 24 of the first-mentioned statute, which is applicable also to the municipal court of Boston, is as follows: "A party aggrieved by the judgment of a district or police court in a civil action may, within twenty-four hours after the entry of the judgment, appeal therefrom to the superior court then next to be held in the county, in which case, no execution shall issue on the judgment appealed from, and the case shall be entered, tried and determined in the court appealed to in like manner as if it had been originally commenced there." A petition to vacate a judgment, or for a writ of review, is, in the broad sense of the words, a civil action. There is nothing in the statutes in regard to writs of review and petitions to vacate judgments that excepts them from the provisions for an appeal which apply to other actions. It has always been the policy of our law to give to parties to actions before trial justices, and district police, and municipal courts, a right of appeal from the decision of the magistrate on every question of law or fact that may arise at the trial. Without this right of appeal, a petitioner who had good grounds for setting aside a judgment would be remediless if the magistrate should erroneously decide against him. While he might in the first instance have made his application to the superior court, in which he would have had a right of exception to any erroneous ruling in matter of law, he would be precluded from making such an application after an adjudication against him in the municipal court. In like manner the respondent would be forever bound by the decision of the justice. While it is true that the granting or refusal of a writ of review, or an order to vacate a judgment, is largely within the discretion of the court, it often involves the decision of questions of law, as well as questions of fact. To hold that there is no way of revising an erroneous decision of a judge of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donnelly v. Montague
... ... proceedings, which were separate from the earlier actions the ... judgments in which were to be vacated or reviewed. Yetten ... v. Conroy, 165 Mass. 238 ... Clarke v. Bacall, ... 171 Mass. 292 ... Lynn Gas & Electric Co. v. Creditors ... National Clearing House, 235 Mass ... ...
-
Maker v. Bouthier
...proceeding. Lynn Gas Co. v. Creditors' National Clearning House, 235 Mass. 114, 126 N. E. 364, and cases collected; Yetten v. Conroy, 165 Mass. 238, 42 N. E. 1130;Hastings v. Parker, 168 Mass. 445, 47 N. E. 194;Radclyffe v. Barton, 154 Mass. 157, 28 N. E. 148. It is the correct practice to ......
-
Donnelly v. Montague
...in such proceedings, which were separate from the earlier actions the judgments in which were to be vacated or reviewed. Yetten v. Conroy, 165 Mass. 238, 42 N.E. 1130;Clarke v. Bacall, 171 Mass. 292, 50 N.E. 614;Lynn Gas & Electric Co. v. Creditors' National Clearing House, 235 Mass. 114, 1......
-
Manzi v. Carlson
...for vacation of judgment is addressed largely to the sound discretion of the trial judge. That is the general principle. Yetten v. Conroy, 165 Mass. 238, 42 N. E. 1130;Lee v. Fowler, 263 Mass. 440, 443, 161 N. E. 910, and cases cited; Beserosky v. Mason, 269 Mass. 325, 328, 168 N. E. 726, a......