TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Conway v. Murphy

Alexander A. Conway v. George E. Murphy

Conway v. Murphy, 192 N.E. 149 (Mass. 1934)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 12, 1934
Judges
Rugg
Citations
192 N.E. 149287 Mass. 5361934 Mass. LEXIS 1199

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 establish a report respecting a trial in a district court. A finding in favor of the plaintiff was filed on February 25, 1933, and notice thereof was sent. The defendant states in his brief that he received the notice on February 27, 1933. He filed a draft report on March 8, 1933. That report on motion was dismissed by the trial judge. By decision of the Appellate Division the report was dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 27 of the District Courts (1932). So far as here material that rule provides that “written request for a report to the Appellate Division shall be filed with the clerk within five days after notice of the final finding in any cause.”

Promulgation of the rule was within the power conferred by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 218, § 43. The defendant failed to comply with it. Massachusetts Drug Co. v. Bencks, 256 Mass. 535 . The filing of the draft report was dependent for its validity upon the precedent filing of a request for report. See Krock v. Consolidated Mines & Power Co. Ltd. 286 Mass. 177 . It is not necessary to determine whether the filing of a draft report within the five days limited by the rule would be sufficient because it was not so filed. See Lawrence v. Board of Registration in Medi *538 cine, 239 Mass. 424, 427 . There is nothing in St. 1933, c. 255, embodying among other matters the substance of the rule, which justifies the conclusion that the rule was not valid before its enactment.

Order of Appellate Division affirmed.

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 →
1936: 21937: 11939: 11940: 11941: 11942: 11960: 11961: 11962: 11968: 11972: 11974: 11975: 11985: 119362026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Whitney v. Medeiros56 Mass. App. Dec. 112 (1975)
  2. Plante v. Millstone Acres, Inc.48 Mass. App. Dec. 68 (1972)
  3. Ahern v. Towle39 N.E.2d 561 (Mass. 1942)
  4. Murphy v. Barry, Inc.3 N.E.2d 214 (Mass. 1936)
  5. Neilson v. Malcolm Kenneth Co.22 N.E.2d 20 (Mass. 1939)
  6. Allston Supply Co. v. Interstate Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp.25 Mass. App. Dec. 139 (1962)

Most recent

  1. Reiman v. Brookline Rent Control Board1985 Mass. App. Div. 186 (1985)
  2. Whitney v. Medeiros56 Mass. App. Dec. 112 (1975)
  3. Scraggs v. Hafford54 Mass. App. Dec. 44 (1974)
  4. Plante v. Millstone Acres, Inc.48 Mass. App. Dec. 68 (1972)
  5. Langone v. Kelling Nut Co.39 Mass. App. Dec. 137 (1968)
  6. Allston Supply Co. v. Interstate Plumbing & Heating Supply Corp.25 Mass. App. Dec. 139 (1962)

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
Lawrence v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 239 Mass. 424 (1921) 51
Krock v. Consol. Mines & Power Co., 189 N.E. 822 (Mass. 1934) 38
Mass. Drug Co. v. Bencks, 152 N.E. 881 (Mass. 1926) 21

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