Legal Opinion

Zeo v. Holzer

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 8, 1962PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Appeal dismissed with double costs. The record in this case consists of a “Petition to Vacate Judgment and Supersede Execution,” an answer, a statement that the petition was denied after hearing, and the petitioners’ appeal. The appeal, which is under G. L. c. 231, § 96, does not lie. The denial of the petition is not an order “founded upon matter of law apparent on the record.” Rose v. Harrison, 228 Mass. 261. Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works v. Clark-Rice Corp. 274 Mass. 488, 490. The appeal is frivolous. We might add that, if this case had been brought here by exceptions, no error of law…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Waltham Bleachery & Dye Works v. Clark-Rice Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  2. Rose v. HarrisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Development Corp. of America v. RawsonMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API