Legal Opinion

Carver-Beaver Yarn Co. v. Wolfson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 23, 1924PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.

The question of the propriety of the allowance of the motion for a new trial following the first trial is not before us. United Drug Co. v. Cordley & Hayes, 239 Mass. 334, 336. If it were, there can be no doubt of the propriety of that ruling. The reasons stated in the motion were, that the verdict was against the evidence, the law, and the weight of the evidence. The judge before whom the case *259was tried made the following indorsement thereon, “ Motion allowed and verdict set aside and new trial ordered for the reasons herein set forth.” The defendant contends that the form of the order was…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Barlow Manufacturing Co. v. StoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  2. United Drug Co. v. CordleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  3. Learned v. HamburgerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  4. Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co. v. FlintMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
  5. P. Garvan, Inc. v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Wetherell Bros. Co. v. United States Steel CoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1953
  2. National Wholesale Grocery Co. v. MannMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
  3. Fairfield Holding Corp. v. SoutherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
  4. Grenier v. City of New BedfordMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976
  5. Webster v. BracciMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API