TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stowell v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.

Albert A. Stowell v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.

Stowell v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 193 N.E. 234 (Mass. 1934)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 13, 1934
Judges
Lummus
Citations
193 N.E. 234288 Mass. 5551934 Mass. LEXIS 1314

Opinion of the Court — Lummus

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

Lummus, J.

In this action of contract the judge, sitting without a jury, found for the plaintiff in an amount less than that claimed. His exceptions to the denial of requested rulings cannot be considered, because they do not appear in the bill of exceptions. He excepted also to the “finding . . . and decision of the court,” and seeks to support his exception on the ground that the evidence did not warrant the finding that no more was due.

Prior to modern rules providing that “The question whether the court should order a verdict shall be raised by a motion, and not by a request for instructions” (Rule 71 of the Superior Court [1932]), when a judge submitted a case to a jury under instructions which permitted a verdict not warranted by the evidence, the instructions were necessarily erroneous though abstractly correct, and the error could be corrected upon an exception taken at the end of the charge. The mere submission implied an erroneous instruction that such a verdict might be found. Brightman v. Eddy, 97 Mass. 478 . McCreary v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 153 Mass. 300, 308 . In such a case it is to be noticed that the exception was taken before the consideration of the facts began.

When the judge acts in the place of judge and jury, as in the present case, his consideration of the case upon the facts and his finding may likewise involve a ruling of law that such a finding is warranted by the evidence. But a party wishing to raise the question whether such a finding is war *557 ranted by the evidence must request a ruling at the trial, before the judge takes the case under consideration on the facts, and within such time as may be prescribed by rule (see Rule 71 of the Superior Court [1932]), and cannot raise the question by an exception to the general finding or decision taken after it is made. Ames v. McCamber, 124 Mass. 85, 91 . Keohane, petitioner, 179 Mass. 69, 73 . Richards v. Appley, 187 Mass. 521, 522, 523 . Reid v. Doherty, 273 Mass. 388 . Breen v. Burns, 280 Mass. 222, 227, 228 . Parker v. Levin, 285 Mass. 125, 129 . Lender v. London, 286 Mass. 45, 47 . Matter of Keenan, 287 Mass. 577, 580 .

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 42 cases

View all citing references →
1936: 11937: 61938: 11939: 41940: 21941: 11942: 21943: 31944: 21945: 11946: 11950: 21951: 11952: 11957: 11960: 11961: 11962: 21963: 11964: 21965: 11968: 11974: 11984: 11991: 11993: 119362026peak 1937 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Leshefsky v. American EmPloyers' Insurance199 N.E. 395 (Mass. 1936)
  2. Baker v. Davis12 N.E.2d 816 (Mass. 1938)
  3. Forbes v. Gordon & Gerber, Inc.9 N.E.2d 416 (Mass. 1937)
  4. In re Loeb52 N.E.2d 37 (Mass. 1943)
  5. Barton v. City of Cambridge61 N.E.2d 830 (Mass. 1945)
  6. James B. Rendle Co. v. Conley & Daggett, Inc.48 N.E.2d 676 (Mass. 1943)

Most recent

  1. General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc. v. Bay State Communications, Inc.1993 Mass. App. Div. 152 (1993)
  2. North Shore Protective Patrol & Detective Agency, Inc. v. Baldwin1991 Mass. App. Div. 61 (1991)
  3. Brady v. Allstate Insurance1984 Mass. App. Div. 242 (1984)
  4. Mirkin v. Swartz312 N.E.2d 588 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)
  5. Mahoney v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority39 Mass. App. Dec. 155 (1968)
  6. Massachusetts General Hospital v. City of Quincy205 N.E.2d 233 (Mass. 1965)

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 10

DepthCaseCited by
Reid v. Doherty, 173 N.E. 516 (Mass. 1930) 129
Breen v. Burns, 182 N.E. 294 (Mass. 1932) 50
Parker v. Levin, 188 N.E. 502 (Mass. 1934) 43
In re Keenan, 192 N.E. 65 (Mass. 1934) 35
McCreary v. Boston & Me. R.R., 10 L.R.A. 769 (Mass. 1891) 30
Brightman v. Eddy, 97 Mass. 478 (1867) 23
Richards v. Applet, 73 N.E. 555 (Mass. 1905) 22
In re Keohane, 60 N.E. 406 (Mass. 1901) 21
Lender v. London, 189 N.E. 797 (Mass. 1934) 16
Ames v. McCamber, 124 Mass. 85 (1878) 14

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