Mixer v. Dalrymple
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
At the trial of this action, which was assumpsit for money had and received, before Sewall, J., in December last, the defendant offered certain evidence, which the judge. decided should not be given to the jury. To this decision the defendant alleged his exceptions, pursuant to the statute, and they were allowed and signed by the judge.
Read the full summary
At the trial of this action, which was assumpsit for money had and received, before Sewall, J., in December last, the defendant offered certain evidence, which the judge. decided should not be given to the jury. To this decision the defendant alleged his exceptions, pursuant to the statute, and they were allowed and signed by the judge. The defendant was entitled to a review of the action under the (1) statute “ granting the privilege of review in civil actions; ” notwithstanding which, Bliss, of counsel for the defendant, moved for a new trial, for the misdirection of the judge, and…
1Opinion of the Court
But the Court
refused to sustain the motion, and observed that it was not within the true intent of the statute, providing for the filing jtnd allowing of these exceptions, that the Court should spend time in hearing and determining motions grounded on these exceptions, and in the mean time to delay judgment, when the party filing the exceptions had a right, by a writ of review, to have a new trial, if *113the motion should be refused; and that the design of the legisla turc was to provide a remedy in a case where none existed, and not in a case where the party aggrieved had a remedy in the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dunham v. BaxterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Byrnes v. PiperMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809