Canfield v. Canfield
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for obstructing a right of way of the plaintiff across a close in New Marlborough. The answer denied that the plaintiff had the alleged right.
Read the full summary
Tort for obstructing a right of way of the plaintiff across a close in New Marlborough. The answer denied that the plaintiff had the alleged right. At the trial in the District Court for Southern Berkshire, the justice refused a prayer of the defendant for certain rulings of law, and made certain other rulings, which it is unnecessary here to state, with regard to the mode of gaining rights of way by prescription; the verdict was for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions. The bill of exceptions certified to this court contained no statement of any facts proved or evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The bill of exceptions contains no statement of facts proved or evidence introduced at the trial. It does not therefore appear that there was error in any material point prejudicial to the defendant, either in the refusal to give the instructions requested, or in the instructions given. As the parties *234agree that the exceptions were originally drawn in this form, and deliberately adopted, after suggestion had been made that the evidence should be stated and the excepting party had resisted any change in them, the motion for a postponement must be denied, and the Exceptions…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Horton v. CooleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Levine v. CohenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Commonwealth v. GilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Gramatan National Bank & Trust Co. of Bronxville v. LancasterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959