TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth v. Greenlaw

Commonwealth v. Jeremiah A. Greenlaw

Commonwealth v. Greenlaw, 119 Mass. 208 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 27, 1875
Judges
Gray
Citations
119 Mass. 2081875 Mass. LEXIS 118
Headnotes
Under the Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7, if exceptions are not presented to the presiding judge, or application made to him for an extension of the time for presenting them, before the final adjournment of the court, they cannot be allowed without the consent of the adverse party, although they are filed within three days after the verdict.
Summary
Indictment for subornation of perjury. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., at July term 1875, the de fendant was found guilty, and alleged exceptions to the rulings at the trial. The certificate of the judge upon the bill of exceptions was as follows: “ I have examined the foregoing bill of exceptions, and find the same to be conformable to the truth ; and I allow the same, provided the Supreme Judicial Court shall be of opinion that I have a right in my discretion so to do, upon the following facts : No bill of exceptions was filed with the clerk in this case, until after the adjournment of the court without day. The verdict in this case was rendered on the last day but one of the term, and, on the next day after verdict, that being the last day of the term, a bill of exceptions was filed, but not until after the final adjournment of the court without day. The time for filing said exceptions was not extended by the court, no application therefor having been made to the court, and no memorandum in relation thereto was made upon the docket. The government did not assent that any bill of exceptions should be filed in this case.”

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gray, C. J.

The provision of the Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7, is explicit, that bills, of exceptions shall be presented to the court within three days after the verdict in the case, or the ruling excepted to, and before the adjournment without day of the term at which the exceptions are taken, unless the court, for good cause shown, allows further time. Application for an extension of the time must be made before the time given by the statute has expired. In the present case, no exceptions having been presented to the presiding judge, or application made to him for an extension of the time for presenting them, until after the final adjournment of the term, he had no authority to allow them without the consent of the adverse party. Barstow v. Marsh, 4 Gray, 165 . Phillips v. Soule, 6 Allen, 150 . Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 362 . Ex parte Bradstreet, 4 Pet. 102 . United States v. Breitling, 20 How. 252 . Exceptions dismissed,

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1877–1878: 31881–1882: 11903–1904: 11905–1906: 11907–1908: 11913–1914: 11925–1926: 11933–1934: 11935–1936: 11939–1940: 118772026peak 1877 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Graustein v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.200 N.E. 14 (Mass. 1936)
  2. Commonwealth v. Dow105 N.E. 995 (Mass. 1914)
  3. Dolan v. Boott Cotton Mills70 N.E. 1025 (Mass. 1904)
  4. Commonwealth v. Davis187 N.E. 33 (Mass. 1933)
  5. Oxman v. Baker County236 P. 1040 (Or. 1925)
  6. Hack v. Nason76 N.E. 906 (Mass. 1906)

Most recent

  1. Attwood v. New England Trust Co.26 N.E.2d 376 (Mass. 1940)
  2. Graustein v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.200 N.E. 14 (Mass. 1936)
  3. Commonwealth v. Davis187 N.E. 33 (Mass. 1933)
  4. Oxman v. Baker County236 P. 1040 (Or. 1925)
  5. Commonwealth v. Dow105 N.E. 995 (Mass. 1914)
  6. Crowe v. Corporation of Charles Town57 S.E. 330 (W. Va. 1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Breitling, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 252 (1858) 105
Ex Parte Martha Bradstreet in the Matter of James Jackson Ex Dem. Martha Bradstreet v. Thomas, 29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 102 (1830) 45
Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 362 (1874) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list