TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

S. Albertson Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.

S. Albertson Company, Inc. v. Great Northern Railway Company

S. Albertson Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 173 N.E.2d 267 (Mass. 1961)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 30, 1961
Judges
Wilkins
Citations
173 N.E.2d 267342 Mass. 3261961 Mass. LEXIS 736

Opinion of the Court — Wilkins

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

Wilkins, C.J.

This action against a common carrier for damages due to delayed delivery of a carload of apples was originally brought in the Superior Court, and then transferred to the Municipal Court of the City of Boston under G. L. c. 231, § 1020, inserted by St. 1958, c. 369, § 3. After trial the Municipal Court judge found for the plaintiff in the amount of $201.50. The defendant, without seeking a report to the Appellate Division, requested retransfer to the Superior Court. Upon retransfer a statement of agreed facts was submitted, the judge found for the plaintiff in the same amount, and the defendant excepted. As *327 part of the same document a summary of the previous proceedings somewhat as set forth above preceded the statement of agreed facts.

The defendant argues that the agreed facts amounted to a case stated, and that the plaintiff had thereby stipulated itself out of its advantage gained in the finding of the Municipal Court judge which under § 1020 was prima facie evidence in the Superior Court. We cannot accept this argument. We do not have the question whether parties after a trial in a District Court under § 1020 may agree that its result shall be placed at naught. The reference to the prior proceedings and to § 102C embraced as a fact the finding for the plaintiff and its effect as prima facie evidence. This case is largely controlled by Lubell v. First Natl. Stores, Inc. ante, 161, just decided. We shall not yield to the importunity of the defendant that we reverse our decision in that case.

The Superior Court judge could find for the plaintiff upon the prima facie evidence of the finding of the Municipal Court judge.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1962: 11968: 11970: 11976: 11979: 119622026peak 1962 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Henry v. Mansfield Beauty Academy, Inc.233 N.E.2d 22 (Mass. 1968)
  2. Fulton v. Gauthier256 N.E.2d 419 (Mass. 1970)
  3. Methuen Construction Co. v. J & A Builders, Inc.349 N.E.2d 357 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
  4. Nuger Sales & Service, Inc. v. Pioneer Credit Corp.186 N.E.2d 709 (Mass. 1962)
  5. Warren v. Edgeco, Inc.392 N.E.2d 857 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Warren v. Edgeco, Inc.392 N.E.2d 857 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)
  2. Methuen Construction Co. v. J & A Builders, Inc.349 N.E.2d 357 (Mass. App. Ct. 1976)
  3. Fulton v. Gauthier256 N.E.2d 419 (Mass. 1970)
  4. Henry v. Mansfield Beauty Academy, Inc.233 N.E.2d 22 (Mass. 1968)
  5. Nuger Sales & Service, Inc. v. Pioneer Credit Corp.186 N.E.2d 709 (Mass. 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 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