Legal Opinion

United Drug Co. v. Cordley

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 7, 1921PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBraley, J.

The order on the first motion to dismiss was interlocutory, and, whether the question should be reported to this court before further proceedings were taken, was discretionary. R. L. c. 173, § 105, as amended. G. L. c. 231, § 111. And there being no statement in the record that the judge had reserved the case for report, the order he made cannot be revised under the report of the judge who subsequently heard and decided the second motion. Walters v. Jackson & Newton Co. 231 Mass. 247. The defendant’s appeal also cannot be considered, because there has been no final judgment in the trial…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Weil v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  2. Reynolds v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  3. Slayton v. Inhabitants of ChesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
  4. Maddox v. Graham & KnoxCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
  5. Johnson v. HigginsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1861

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Paraboschi v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
  2. Barringer v. NorthridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
  3. Bay State Wholesale Drug Co. v. WhitmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  4. Atlantic National Bank v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  5. Phillips v. Director General of RailroadsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925

29 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