TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sanger v. Milbury

Sabin P. Sanger v. Roy S. Milbury Roy S. Milbury v. Sabin P. Sanger

Sanger v. Milbury, 146 N.E. 45 (Mass. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 20, 1925
Citations
146 N.E. 45250 Mass. 5801925 Mass. LEXIS 938

Opinion of the Court

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

By the Court.

These are two actions of tort tried together and arising out of a collision between two automobiles, one owned by each of the parties. The case was tried fully in the Superior Court. No exceptions were taken. The verdicts were in favor of Sanger. Thereafter Milbury filed a motion for a new trial in each case, alleging that the verdict was against the law, against the evidence, and against the weight of the evidence. About two weeks later an amendment to these motions, specifying that the presiding judge had charged upon the facts, was allowed against Sanger’s objection and exception, “ if the court had power to do so.” The motions as amended were overruled. To the refusal to grant a new trial for the reasons set forth in the amendment Milbury excepted.

No question of law is presented on this record. No party can as matter of right raise a question of law on the motion to set aside a verdict which might have been raised before verdict. The granting of the motion for a new trial rested in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Lonergan v. American Railway. Express Co. 250 Mass. 30 . No intimation is to be inferred from this ground of decision that there was any error in the charge as given, if such question were open. Double costs are awarded to Sanger. G. L. c. 211, §10.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1926: 11934: 11940: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Skoll v. Cushman13 A.2d 180 (Vt. 1940)
  2. Emerson v. Universal Products Co.179 A. 383 (Del. Super. Ct. 1934)
  3. McKin v. Siegel152 N.E. 312 (Mass. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Skoll v. Cushman13 A.2d 180 (Vt. 1940)
  2. Emerson v. Universal Products Co.179 A. 383 (Del. Super. Ct. 1934)
  3. McKin v. Siegel152 N.E. 312 (Mass. 1926)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Lonergan v. Am. Ry. Express Co., 144 N.E. 756 (Mass. 1924) 82

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