TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

O'Brien v. Gove

George E. A. O'Brien v. Robert J. Gove & others

O'Brien v. Gove, 94 N.E. 271 (Mass. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 3, 1911
Judges
Rugg
Citations
94 N.E. 271208 Mass. 3251911 Mass. LEXIS 821
Headnotes
Equity Pleading and Practice, Master’s report. In a suit in equity, where the case has been referred to a master under an order in the usual form and the master lias filed a report in which he finds that the allegations of the bill relied upon by the plaintiff as the ground for relief are not true and does not report the evidence, and no exceptions are taken to the master’s report, the only action possible for the judge who hears the case is to make a decree that the bill be dismissed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Rugg

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

Rugg, J.

This is a suit in equity by which the plaintiff seeks to set aside the foreclosure of a mortgage on real estate, of which he owned the equity, on the ground that the foreclosure sale was not held as advertised. The case was referred to a master under an order in the usual form. lío exceptions were taken to the master’s report. The master found as a fact that the foreclosure sale was held as advertised and stated that this was the only issue tried before him. As the evidence is not reported, there is nothing upon which to base a criticism of this finding. It stands as final. A decree * has been entered dismissing the bill, from which the plaintiff appealed. The only matter open for argument is that the decree could not have been entered lawfully upon the facts found. It is too plain for discussion that the only action possible, upon a finding that the allegations upon which the plaintiff relied were not true, was to dismiss the bill.

Decree affirmed with costs.

Made in the Superior Court by Richardson, J.

How later courts describe this case

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

1923: 11929: 11934: 21936: 219232026peak 1934 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Levinson v. Connors168 N.E. 736 (Mass. 1929)
  2. Milne v. Walsh188 N.E. 624 (Mass. 1934)
  3. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald244 Mass. 61 (1923)
  4. McCarthy v. Fitzgerald5 N.E.2d 36 (Mass. 1936)
  5. Moore v. Northampton Co-operative Bank192 N.E. 747 (Mass. 1934)
  6. Polep v. Manning4 N.E.2d 447 (Mass. 1936)

Most recent

  1. McCarthy v. Fitzgerald5 N.E.2d 36 (Mass. 1936)
  2. Polep v. Manning4 N.E.2d 447 (Mass. 1936)
  3. Moore v. Northampton Co-operative Bank192 N.E. 747 (Mass. 1934)
  4. Milne v. Walsh188 N.E. 624 (Mass. 1934)
  5. Levinson v. Connors168 N.E. 736 (Mass. 1929)
  6. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald244 Mass. 61 (1923)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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