TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Conway v. Callahan

Bernard Conway v. Daniel Callahan

Conway v. Callahan, 121 Mass. 165 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 25, 1876
Citations
121 Mass. 1651876 Mass. LEXIS 318
Headnotes
Dnder the Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7, if notice of the filing of a bill of exceptions is not given to the adverse party, within three days after verdict, or within further time allowed by the judge before the expiration of the three days, and that party has not waived such notice, the exceptions will be dismissed.
Summary
Motion to dismiss the defendant’s bill of exceptions to rulings of Brigham, C. J., at a trial in the Superior Court at June term 1876, on the ground that the plaintiff had not been seasonably notified of the filing thereof. It appeared by the docket and files of that court that a verdict for the plaintiff was returned and recorded July 5, 1876. The certificate of the judge on the bill of exceptions was as follows: “July 31, 1876. Exceptions allowed, being conformable to the truth. The foregoing exceptions were filed on July 8, 1876. The defendant’s attorney mailed a postal card on July 14,1876, at Fall River, to the plaintiff’s attorney, notifying him of the Ring of these exceptions ; and this notice was received by the plaintiff’s attorney, in due course of maR, on July 15, 1876. Eo reasonable explanation of this delay was found by the court, and the exceptions were allowed against the objection and exception of plaintiff’s attorney.”

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

Opinion of the Court

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

By the Court.

The statute requires that a bill of exceptions shall be filed and notified to the adverse party, as well as presented to the court, within three days after verdict, or within further time aEowed by the judge before the expiration of the three days. The plaintiff, not having waived compliance with the statute, is entitled to insist upon it. Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7. Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 362 . Tufts v. Newton, 119 Mass. 476 . Exceptions dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1878–1879: 41880–1881: 11890–1891: 11896–1897: 11900–1901: 11904–1905: 11906–1907: 11916–1917: 21920–1921: 21924–1925: 118782026peak 1878 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Purcell v. Boston, Halifax, & Prince Edward Island Steamship Line23 N.E. 834 (Mass. 1890)
  2. Dolan v. Boott Cotton Mills70 N.E. 1025 (Mass. 1904)
  3. Moneyweight Scale Co.225 Mass. 473 (1917)
  4. Oxman v. Baker County236 P. 1040 (Or. 1925)
  5. Hack v. Nason76 N.E. 906 (Mass. 1906)
  6. Doherty v. Phoenix Insurance224 Mass. 310 (1916)

Most recent

  1. Oxman v. Baker County236 P. 1040 (Or. 1925)
  2. Day v. McClellan236 Mass. 330 (1920)
  3. Day125 N.E. 846 (Mass. 1920)
  4. Moneyweight Scale Co.225 Mass. 473 (1917)
  5. Doherty v. Phoenix Insurance224 Mass. 310 (1916)
  6. Hack v. Nason76 N.E. 906 (Mass. 1906)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 362 (1874) 11
Tufts v. Newton, 119 Mass. 476 (1876) 8

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