Holmes v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway Co.

In this action of tort, in which the plaintiff Lillian Holmes (hereinafter called the plaintiff) had a verdict, several procedural questions have arisen.1 Since our answers to these questions are decisive of the case we do not reach the merits. There are also before us exceptions arising out of a petition to vacate judgment.

The First Case.

The questions for decision arose in these circumstances. On March 30, 1960, a conditional nonsuit under Rule 36 of the Superior Court (1954) was entered against the plaintiff for failure to answer interrogatories. The condition of the nonsuit was that it was…