TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Comins v. Turner's Falls Co.

Stephen D. Comins v. Turner's Falls Company

Comins v. Turner's Falls Co., 3 N.E. 304 (Mass. 1885)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 23, 1885
Judges
Morton
Citations
3 N.E. 304140 Mass. 1461885 Mass. LEXIS 303
Headnotes
A ruling of the Superior Court, upon the trial of a complaint for flowage, that the complainant is entitled to maintain the complaint, and excluding evidence offered by the respondent, is interlocutory only, and exceptions thereto, entered in this court before the case is finally disposed of in the Superior Court, will be dismissed.
Summary
Complaint under the mill act, Pub. Sts. c. 190, for flowage. After the former decision, reported 138 Mass. 222, the ease was tried in the Superior Court, before Staples; J., who ruled that, if the respondent’s dam was effectively raised by him, and thereby flowed the complainant’s land, doing damage, it presented a case under the mill act; and excluded evidence offered by the respondent, tending to show that the dam was not higher in its effective height than a former dam, in place of which this dam had been constructed, and afterwards raised. The jury found for the complainant; and the respondent alleged exceptions.

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

Opinion of the Court — Morton

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

Morton, C. J.

It is the rule, settled by numerous decisions, that exceptions taken in cases pending in the Superior Court cannot be entered and heard in this court until the case has been finally disposed of, or is ripe for judgment, in the court below.

Interlocutory judgments or rulings cannot be heard until after a final disposition of the case in the Superior Court. Boyce v. Wheeler, 133 Mass. 554 , and cases cited. Crompton Carpet Co. v. Worcester, 119 Mass. 375 . This rule applies to the case before us. In Marshall v. Merritt, 13 Allen, 274 , which, like this case, was a complaint under the mill act, exceptions were taken to a ruling at the hearing, upon the question whether a warrant should issue to empanel a jury to assess the complainant’s damages, and were entered in this court before the jury trial was had; and it was held that they must be dismissed as prematurely entered, because there had been no final determination of the case in the Superior Court.

.Exceptions dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1891: 11914: 21917: 118912026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lowd v. Brigham154 Mass. 107 (1891)
  2. Ownbey v. Morgan105 A. 838 (Del. 1917)
  3. Weil v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.104 N.E. 343 (Mass. 1914)
  4. Farris v. St. Paul's Baptist Church104 N.E. 639 (Mass. 1914)

Most recent

  1. Ownbey v. Morgan105 A. 838 (Del. 1917)
  2. Weil v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.104 N.E. 343 (Mass. 1914)
  3. Farris v. St. Paul's Baptist Church104 N.E. 639 (Mass. 1914)
  4. Lowd v. Brigham154 Mass. 107 (1891)

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
Boyce v. Wheeler, 133 Mass. 554 (1882) 9
Crompton Carpet Co. v. City of Worcester, 119 Mass. 375 (1876) 5

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