TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boston Elevated Railway Co. v. Leighr

Boston Elevated Railway Company v. Louise M. Leighr

Boston Elevated Ry. Co. v. Leighr, 135 N.E. 880 (Mass. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 26, 1922
Judges
Rugg
Citations
135 N.E. 880241 Mass. 5821922 Mass. LEXIS 928

Opinion of the Court — Rugg

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

Rugg, C.J.

This is a petition to vacate a judgment entered in the Superior Court. G. L. c. 250, §§ 14-20. After a hearing the petition was dismissed and the petitioner appealed. Copies of the writ, pleadings, verdict and docket entries in the original case against the present petitioner and another defendant are printed as a part of this record. There is no finding of facts. There is no ruling of law. From the docket entries it appears that a motion for a new trial was filed by each defendant, both of which were overruled. Exceptions taken at the trial were waived.

There is nothing to indicate what took place before the judge on the hearing of the present motion. There is nothing to show what admissions or evidence were presented to him. The only matter of record is that there was a hearing and as a result the proceeding was dismissed. The record fails to disclose what instructions were given to the jury at the main trial, or what occurred at that trial in other respects affecting the questions here argued at the bar. Richmond v. Whittlesey, 2 Allen, 230. Morrin v. Manning, 205 Mass. 205 . Holt v. Roberts, 175 Mass. 558 .

This case falls within the general rule that a petition to vacate a judgment ordinarily is addressed to sound judicial discretion, and the simple refusal to grant it commonly presents no question of law. This record does not disclose abuse of discretion. Ryan v. Hickey, 240 Mass. 46 , and cases there collected.

Order dismissing petition affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1923: 11929: 11931: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fairbanks v. Beard141 N.E. 590 (Mass. 1923)
  2. Mellet v. Swan269 Mass. 173 (1929)
  3. Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works v. Clark-Rice Corp.175 N.E. 174 (Mass. 1931)

Most recent

  1. Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works v. Clark-Rice Corp.175 N.E. 174 (Mass. 1931)
  2. Mellet v. Swan269 Mass. 173 (1929)
  3. Fairbanks v. Beard141 N.E. 590 (Mass. 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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Ryan v. Hickey, 132 N.E. 718 (Mass. 1921) 51
Morrin v. Manning, 91 N.E. 308 (Mass. 1910) 20
Holt v. Roberts, 56 N.E. 702 (Mass. 1900) 2

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