Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Walsh v. Feinstein

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided February 26, 1931PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.

The plaintiff filed motions to dismiss the defendant’s bills of exceptions because no sufficient notice in writing was given of the filing of the same as required by G. L. c. 231, § 113, and Common Law Rule 51 of the Superior Court (1923). These requirements are that “ exceptions shall be reduced to writing . . . and filed with the clerk, and notice thereof shall be given to the adverse party . . . .” These words plainly mean that the filing must occur first and that the notice must follow to report and give information of a past event. The words employed and the frame of the sentence forbid…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gorski's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  2. Chertok v. DixMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  3. Day v. McClellanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
  4. Dutton v. BennettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  5. O'Neil v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Gallagher v. AtkinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
  2. Graustein v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
  3. Famigletti v. NeviackasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
  4. Arlington Trust Co. v. Le VineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
  5. Checkoway v. Cashman Bros.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API