Reid v. Doherty
Mass.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2008Atlas Mortgage Corp. v. Lahey Mass. App. Div.
- 200831-35, LLC v. Zucco Mass. App. Div.
- 2002Hebshie v. Recchiuti Mass. App. Div.
- 1999Mutual Oil Co. v. A.A. Sunoco, Inc. Mass. App. Div.
- 1997Ducker v. Ducker Mass. App. Div.
- 1997Shepley Wood Products, Inc. v. Nickulas Mass. App. Div.
- 1997Macone Bros. v. Strauss Mass. App. Div.
- 1997Bang v. Tran Mass. App. Div.
- 1997Law Office of Johnson v. Donohoe Mass. App. Div.
- 1995Murphy's Express, Inc. v. EBPJ, Inc. Mass. App. Div.
Cites 6 cases
- In re Keohane
- Richards v. Applet
- New Bedford Cotton Waste Co. v. Eugen C. Andres Co.
- Donovan Motor Car Co. v. Niles
- Fox v. Harding
- Farlow v. Ellis
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
William F. Reid vs. Henry L. Doherty.
Attorneys
- G. H. McDermott, (J. E. Nally with him,) for the plaintiff.
- A. J. Santry, (R. Bancroft with him,) for the defendant.
This case comes before us upon an appeal from an order of an Appellate Division dismissing a report of rulings and refusals to rule made by a trial judge. The trial judge found that the plaintiff had waived his right to claim damages for breach of a contract to deliver stock; and the chief contention of the appellant is that there was error in the finding in that it was not supported by the evidence. The contention is not open to him. The only matters brought before the Appellate Division by the report were the propriety of rulings with regard to the interpretation of the contract and the legal effect of failure on the part of the defendant to deliver stock at the time fixed by the contract. All the requests were rendered immaterial by the finding of waiver. The question of waiver is one of fact. Fox v. Harding, 7 Cush. 516, 520. Farlow v. Ellis, 15 Gray, 229, 231, 232. Donovan Motor Car Co. v. Niles, 246 Mass. 106, 107. Its determination was for the trial judge; and there is no appeal from his finding of fact. If the plaintiff desired to raise the question of law, whether the evidence would support a finding of waiver, he should have presented a request for a ruling and asked a report to that end. This he did not do. Neither by request for ruling nor motion for finding in regard to waiver did he obtain a determination of law distinct from a finding of fact. The law is settled that in such a case there is no ground for exception, and nothing for an appellate tribunal to pass upon. Keohane, petitioner, 179 Mass. 69. Richards v. Appley, 187 Mass. 521. New Bedford Cotton Waste Co. v. Eugen C. Andres Co. 258 Mass. 13. The order of the Appellate Division was correct; and it is
Affirmed.