Conway v. Callahan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Motion to dismiss the defendant’s bill of exceptions to rulings of Brigham, C. J., at a trial in the Superior Court at June term 1876, on the ground that the plaintiff had not been seasonably notified of the filing thereof.
Read the full summary
Motion to dismiss the defendant’s bill of exceptions to rulings of Brigham, C. J., at a trial in the Superior Court at June term 1876, on the ground that the plaintiff had not been seasonably notified of the filing thereof. It appeared by the docket and files of that court that a verdict for the plaintiff was returned and recorded July 5, 1876. The certificate of the judge on the bill of exceptions was as follows: “July 31, 1876. Exceptions allowed, being conformable to the truth. The foregoing exceptions were filed on July 8, 1876. The defendant’s attorney mailed a postal card on July…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The statute requires that a bill of exceptions shall be filed and notified to the adverse party, as well as presented to the court, within three days after verdict, or within further time aEowed by the judge before the expiration of the three days. The plaintiff, not having waived compliance with the statute, is entitled to insist upon it. Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7. Doherty v. Lincoln, 114 Mass. 362. Tufts v. Newton, 119 Mass. 476. Exceptions dismissed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Doherty v. LincolnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Tufts v. NewtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
3Cited by15 opinions
- Dolan v. Boott Cotton MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Moneyweight Scale Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Hack v. NasonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Doherty v. Phoenix InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Blair v. LaflinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.